F v M & Ors

I am concerned today with Benji, a little boy of nine years of age. His parents are F and M both of whom have parental responsibility for him. Benji is separately represented within these proceedings. The paternal grandparents, AP and GP, were granted party status on 9 February 2024 and have been given leave to pursue an application in respect of contact.

There are a number of applications before the court; the father’s application dated 12 June 2020 for a child arrangements ‘spend time with’ order, his subsequent application dated 6 January 2023 for a child arrangements ‘lives with’ order and the paternal grandparents’ application dated 26 May 2023 for a child arrangements ‘spend time with’ order.

The parents are aged 43 and 40 years respectively. The mother was previously married to Charlie Harris, two children were born of that marriage: Leah aged 21 years and Jake now aged 14 years. I understand that the mother and Mr Harris have remarried.

These parents met in Ireland in about 2012. They began a relationship in circumstances where the father was engaged to someone else, and the mother was still married. There is dispute as to whether she was separated from her husband at the time. The father’s family were less than pleased about the relationship and that caused tensions between the couple. The parents married in 2014. The mother’s older children were living with their father but had very regular contact with their mother.

It is clear from the statements filed by the parties and the various schedules before the Court that each made a number of allegations against the other in terms of behaviour, including of verbal and physical abuse, that spanned the period they spent in Ireland from 2015 to 2016. Benji was born in the middle of the timeframe of those allegations.

In 2016, the parties moved to live in England. At that stage, Leah moved to live full-time with her mother, but Jake remained living in Ireland with his father. There continued, as evidenced by the statements and schedules of allegations, to be cross-allegations of verbal and physical abuse during the period 2016 to 2020. There was a final incident that led to the parties’ separation in April 2020. The Police were called, the father was removed from the property and he was subsequently charged with two assaults on the mother and Leah. Video contact continued between the father and Benji and Benji and the paternal grandparents up until 7 May 2020. The mother and the children moved from Southern England to Norfolk in early May 2020 .

The father made this application for a child arrangements order on 12 June 2020. After making his application F he was acquitted in respect of the assault charges in relation to the incident in April 2020. On 11 January 2021, the magistrates formed the view that a fact-finding hearing was not necessary in respect of the father’s application for contact and directed a section 7 report be completed. The report was filed on 30 March 2021. The Cafcass Officer recommended Benji should live with the mother and have no direct contact with the father.

On 14 May 2021, the magistrates transferred the matter to the designated family judge. On 15 June 2021, HHJ Dawson directed that Benji be made a party to proceedings and she ordered an assessment by the Local Authority. The order reflects her concerns about the methodology used by the Cafcass officer, and Cafcass were invited to appoint a Guardian of considerable experience to the matter.

I first heard the matter on 4 October 2021. I ordered a fact-finding hearing in respect of the allegations of the parties. DJ Russell heard the matter on 22 October 2021. She made various directions pursuant to the fact-finding hearing and also approved the joint instruction of Dr Downs, a consultant clinical psychologist, who was to file a report post the fact-finding hearing.

The fact-finding hearing was conducted by HHJ Shaw. It appears that on day three of the five-day listed hearing, an agreed factual matrix by way of a document entitled ‘Reformatted Definitive Schedule of Findings and Concessions’ was approved by the Court. It reads as follows:

It is also correct that in respect to his allegation that the mother had unreasonably prevented contact, it was recorded, ‘the father accepts that this is part of the welfare considerations of the court.’ Dr Downs reported on 4 January 2022. Her report has been subject to challenge within these proceedings which I will return to later. Her conclusions are as follows: during the assessment of Benji, there was evidence to indicate he had been influenced negatively in his perception of his father, he was utilising the psychological defence of “splitting” which was suggestive of him being pressured into or aligning with his mother and devaluing and rejecting his father. In relation to the mother, she tended to project blame for the breakdown of their relationship largely onto the father and appeared to lack insight into the part she is playing in the harm caused to Benji in his negative perception of his father. In relation to the father, there was little in the way of evidence to suggest he would pose a risk to his son within the context of supervised contact. She went on to recommend the reinstatement of contact and therapeutic intervention.

HHJ Shaw heard the matter again on 29 February 2022. It was agreed between the parties and approved by the Court that contact would be supervised. The contact started in April 2022. There was one face-to-face contact and then five virtual or attempted sessions up until May 2022. Benji was resistant to engaging with his father directly and, thereafter, did not engage in the virtual or other sessions.  On 4 May 2022, HHJ Shaw agreed that the parties should engage in the jointly-proposed therapy with a family therapist, re-stated in the July 2022 order.

In August 2022, the mother made an application for a Stay of the proceedings, having moved to her current solicitors. She invited the father to undertake a DAPP course and she sought a psychiatric assessment of herself. She sought the recusal of DJ Russell and HHJ Shaw and made various criticisms of the court, the Guardian and the assessment carried out by Dr Downs.

On 22 September 2022, HHJ Shaw again heard the matter, she was represented by new counsel Ms Gartland just before her elevation to silk. She confirmed that she was not seeking to reopen the fact-finding hearing but did not feel able to participate in the previously agreed therapy or to support furthercontact.

In October 2022, Dr Van Velsen a consultant forensic adult psychiatrist was instructed at the request of the mother to complete a risk assessment of both parties. She reported in December 2022. In that report, she did not consider that the father’s presentation or conduct was such to preclude contact, she recommended family therapy and suggested an organisation such as the Anna Freud Centre in London.

In January 2023, the father made an application for transfer of residence. Over the ensuing months, the Guardian made various enquiries of the Anna Freud Centre but they were unable to assist. On 26 May 2023, the paternal grandparents made an application for leave and for contact to Benji. On 30 May 2023, HHJ Shaw ordered a Professionals meeting and also directed a pre-trial review on 23 June 2023 and a final hearing commencing on 13 November 2023 in front of myself. At this hearing, whilst continuing to instruct the same solicitors, the father was represented for the first time by Mr Gupta KC.

On 19 May 2023 Dr Downs filed her addendum report. She said in summary that it was possible Benji’s experiences had caused him distress, but it was unlikely to justify his rejection of his father and said there was still evidence of splitting. She said that the mother was not able to separate her own needs and feelings from those of Benji who was influenced by her and aligned to her. She recommended therapy as a precursor to retrying contact between Benji and the father.

On 23 June 2023 I adjourned the paternal grandparents’ application, initially to 21 July 2023 and then latterly to 9 February 2024, primarily to allow the parties the optimum chance of success in family therapy. On 12 July 2023 at a professionals meeting it was agreed there should be therapeutic work undertaken by a child therapist and parenting coach. In light of the parents embarking on therapy, the fact-finding hearing in November was vacated by consent on 20 October 2023.

The therapists filed an undated report in December 2023 despite there being no direction to do so. She reported on the four sessions completed with each parent but stated they had not completed any sessions with Benji. They were critical of the approach of Dr Downs. They disagreed with her opinion of splitting and believed that Benji had lived experiences that better explained his view of his father. They recommended a 12-month break in proceedings before intervention with Benji started.

Dr Van Velsen reported on 16 January 2024 and then again on 30 January 2024. She raised concerns about the report filed by the therapists and, on balance, disagreed with the conclusion for a Stay of proceedings.

On 9 February 2024 I again heard the case. I listed the final hearing to consider the competing applications of the parents; the mother’s applications to dismiss or Stay the proceedings and the father’s applications for contact and/or transfer of residence. I joined the paternal grandparents and the mother then raised the issue of re-opening the fact-finding hearing.

On 4 April 2024 the mother made a Re W application for Benji to give evidence within any re-opened fact-finding hearing. I gave directions on 10 May 2024 listing a two-day hearing to consider the mother’s application to re-open the fact-finding hearing and the Re W application. I also gave case management directions in respect to the final hearing and directly liaised with the advocates to fix the dates, and in particular to fit in with the availability of the mother’s new counsel Mr Bagchi KC.

Following a two-day hearing on 2 July 2024 I dismissed the mother’s application to re-open the fact-finding hearing and the linked Re W application. In that judgement I recognised that the mother, Benji and Leah are victims of Domestic Abuse under section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The father and the paternal grandparents both sought their costs in respect of the discrete application, their counsel have filed skeleton arguments in accordance with the order and counsel for mother filed a skeleton argument in response. I notified the advocates upon receipt that I would reserve any decision until after the welfare hearing as I accepted what Mr Bagchi KC had submitted on her behalf, namely no decision should be made until I had the opportunity to hear from her in person. The judgement in respect of the costs application will follow on from this one.

On 27 September 2024 I approved a consent order following a C2 application by the child’s solicitor for further questions to be posed to Dr Downs on behalf of the mother. It subsequently became evident the mother’s solicitors had sent a further list of questions to the expert, not agreed by the other parties and without the knowledge of the court, on the same day.

On 2 October 2024 at 15:59pm a C2 application was received on behalf of the mother to adjourn the proceedings and to transfer the matter to High Court level accompanied by a 22 page skeleton argument. On 3 October 2024 I dismissed the application for an adjournment and/or transfer to High Court level.

When the court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. Under section 2 the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. Under section 2A, a court, when considering making varying or discharging any section 8 order, which is opposed by another party, in respect to each parent, is to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement, direct or direct, of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare. The court shall have regard to the matters set out in the welfare checklist at section 3 namely,

I made it clear in my judgement of 2 July 2024 that the mother and Benji were victims of domestic abuse pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Section 3 deals with ‘Children as victims of domestic abuse’ It states:

PD12J is therefore engaged. Under paragraph 35, when deciding the issue of child arrangements, the court should ensure any order for contact will not expose the child to a unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.

Under paragraph 36:

Under paragraph 37:

Under paragraph 39:

The father seeks a finding that the mother has unreasonably prevented contact and/or has demonstrated alienating behaviours, on the basis of allegations detailed in his final statement dated 4 September 2024 at paragraphs 4-27. It is a matter of fact for the court, as made clear by the President in the case of Re C (Parental alienation: Instruction of Expert) 2023 EWHC 345 para 103:

The mother seeks a finding against the father of ‘coercive controlling behaviour,’ and as with the allegation of unreasonably preventing contact/alienating behaviours, the burden of proof lies on the party making the allegation and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Findings must be based on evidence not suspicion or speculation Re A (A Child)(Fact Finding Hearing :Speculation) 2011 EWCA Civ 12.The court must take into account all the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence Re T (2004) EWCA Civ 558 (2004) 2 FLR 838. It is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may have lied for various reasons, such as shame, misplayed loyalty, panic, fear, distress. The fact that a witness may have lied does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the matter alleged against them and the fact a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything R v Lucas (1981) QB 720. A summary of all the applicable law is set out in case of Re A and B (Children :Parental Alienation) (No 5) (202)3 EWHC 1864 at paragraphs 39-49 which I adopt. Furthermore at paragraph 48 it sets out guidance from the case of Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse:Findings of Fact Hearings) (2021) EWCA Civ 448 including a definition of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’.

The mother seeks a section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 for 5 years; 37A of PD12J states:

The key principles are set out in section 2 of PD12Q:

On behalf of the paternal grandparents the court was reminded of the recent case of J and K v M (2024) EWHC 1156, (Fam) which confirms there is no presumption of contact for grandparents, the principles are straightforward and emerge from the welfare checklist with the court’s paramount consideration the child’s welfare. There is reference at paragraph 46 of the judgement to Re W (Contact: Application by Grandparents (1997) 1 FLR 793 Hollis J ‘It would be a nonsense in the longer term for a child to be denied contact with his grandmother because of bitterness between the mother and grandmother. Grandparents play an important role in children’s lives, especially young children and their influence is extremely beneficial, provided it is exercised with care and not too frequently.’ In the case of Re J (Leave to issue an Application for a Residence Order) 2003 1 FLR 114 Thorpe LJ stressed the importance of trial judges recognising the greater appreciation that had developed of the value of what grandparents had to offer.

In the course of final submissions I was referred to a number of Cafcass documents by counsel for the parents; ‘Assessing whether alienating behaviour is causing or contributing to child resistance or refusal,’ ‘Guidance on recommendations for the child when alienating behaviour is a factor,’ ‘Alienating behaviours’ and the new Cafcass policy on Domestic Abuse dated 9 October 2024. I was also referred by counsel for the father to, ‘A Practical Guide to Parental Alienation in Private Law and Public Law cases’ by Sam King KC and ‘The Alienated Child’ by Nick Woodall.

In addition I have been referred to the following cases by counsel for the father Re D 2009 EWCA 1467 and Re L ( A Child) 2019 EWHC 867. I confirm I have read and carefully taken into account all the legislation, caselaw, guidance and articles that I have been referred to.

The mother invites the Court to make a final order in the following terms:

The father invites the Court to make orders that will allow Benji to have a thriving and direct relationship with both of his parents and be aware of his dual heritage, whether by way of a section 37 direction to the Local Authority, a change of residence or a suspended change of residence or it being reserved as an ultimate option for the court at a review hearing, alongside orders for direct and indirect contact, in circumstances where he seeks a finding that the mother has ‘unreasonably prevented contact both direct and indirect between Benji and the father and the paternal family’.

The paternal grandparents invite the Court to make a clear order which will allow them to spend regular time with Benji, separate from his father, where the focus would be on him, which would allow him to have a full relationship with the paternal side of his family and to connect with his dual heritage and cultural background.

On behalf of the child the Guardian made no recommendations to the court.

The issues I therefore have to decide are as follows:

The evidence in this case is contained in eight large lever arch files, the core bundle itself runs to 2465 pages. In addition, the bundle in relation to the Our Family Wizard communications between the parents runs to 220 pages and the one relating to a Subject Access Request in respect to Dr Downs a further 130 pages. At the end of the hearing on 2 July 2024, at my direction, Counsel were in the process of agreeing a much-reduced bundle, it being accepted the documentation which related to the fact-finding hearing was not required. I was reassured by all that they would be able to agree those matters without my input. It is very disappointing that has not happened but instead a further three bundles have been added. I was told in an email dated 1 October 2024 from the mother’s solicitors that whilst a proposed index was circulated, they did not ‘wish to reduce the contents much given much of the evidence may be referred to in cross-examination.’ The failure to reduce the size of the bundles has not, in my view, assisted this hearing. Nevertheless, I have read all of the documentation in full and with care.

I have heard the evidence in this case over a period of 9 days. I was anxious that all parties should have a full opportunity to put their respective cases to the court, particularly the mother, who has indicated she has not felt heard by the court previously. However the net effect has been a voluminous amount of evidence has been received by the court, which is reflected in the length of this judgement. In respect to the witnesses, I have heard live evidence from Dr Downs, Dr Van-Velsen, the mother, the father, the paternal grandparents and the Guardian. Participation directions were in place throughout the hearing including the use of staggered entrances and exits to and from the courtroom and the use of screens at all times the mother was in the courtroom listening to the evidence of others. In addition, the mother sought and was granted a participation direction under R3A and PD3AA FPR 2010 that when she gave evidence the father was not in courtroom but instead in a conference room listening via a laptop with his image on the screen covered, and at the same time the grandparents were behind a screen. Whenever the hearing was remote the mother has kept her camera off and breaks were given at reasonable intervals. I am satisfied as a result she was able to give her best evidence and fully participate in the hearing. I also heard detailed submissions on behalf of each of the parties. Due to the time spent on the application to adjourn and transfer the case, the timetable was lost, and the judgement needed to be reserved. I confirm I have taken all matters very carefully into account.

The father was represented by Mr Gupta KC, the mother by Dr Proudman, the paternal grandparents by Ms Kumar and the child by Ms Nunn. Each are extremely experienced advocates who have dealt with the matter with great care and skill. I should also note one member of the press attended on the first day of the hearing and two members of the press attended on the day Dr Downs gave evidence. A Transparency order was made with the consent of the parties on 14 October 2024. No member of the press attended for any day thereafter.

Dr Downs is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist who has filed a number of reports in this case. Her first report is dated 4 January 2022, her Addendum report is dated 14 February 2022, and her second Addendum report is dated 19 May 2023. In addition, her response to a number of questions posed on behalf of the mother is dated 3 October 2024 and following her evidence she provided details of research to support what she was saying and her CPD records for 5 years dated 18 October 2024.

She gave live evidence for a very long time, approaching 7 hours even allowing for breaks, the vast majority of which was cross-examination on behalf of the mother. This was far from ideal but in circumstances where she had travelled a considerable distance to do so it was important to finish. The following is therefore only a summary of the evidence she gave, relevant to the issues I have to decide.

She said she had seen the therapists’ report, the outcome was disappointing, they disagreed with her position and thus it was difficult to see how they would have been able to progress therapy given their own stance. She disagreed with their recommendation for a 12 month stay, it would prolong difficulties and entrench problems for Benji. Her report set out the current risk of harm to Benji, he has been in that situation for some years and a pause, especially for 12 months, was not in his interests. The mother and children were subject to domestic abuse, it was for the court to decide if Benji’s rejection of his father was justified, but when she saw him he was clearly not afraid of his father.

She said his mother had talked of Benji having physical reactions to discussions about his father, but he didn’t show them when she spoke to him, he was very forthright that he didn’t want to see him. His school confirmed he had shown no fear or upset when talking about his father. It is important to determine why he might have had such physical reactions, there could be a number of factors, it could be he was placed in a situation that was very difficult. He did not have them with her and he has not had those reactions when viewing pictures or talking to others about his father since.

She has assessed children who have suffered abuse many times, including by a parent. Benji’s reaction was very untypical, as was the way he spoke to her and to other professionals. He was bold and angry; children find it very difficult to disclose. Benji’s comment ‘I have a voice and need to be listened to’ was language she had heard his mother use. The language Benji used, included, ‘I don’t like him, it’s because ofhim I can’t enjoy things, he has ruined my life’ it was not typical language she hears from children who have been subject to abuse. She said the paternal grandparents had been triangulated in as Benji told her, ‘they are onhis side’ and ‘I want to be free of these horrible people– all of them. I won’t see them, they are on his side,’ were examples of splitting. Benji feels he can only be on one side or the other, good or bad. The paternal grandparents’ evidence is they had a good loving relationship. When she saw Benji looking at pictures of the paternal grandparents there was no evidence of him being upset or distressed.

It is for the court to determine if Benji’s expressed views are due to other factors such as influence, if so, it is important he is able to rebuild relationships and see he has two loving homes and not continue the narrative that the paternal side of the family is bad and the maternal side of the family is good. He sees the paternal home as a threat to him, in her opinion that is a narrative he has been given, but that is not to say domestic abuse has not happened or that he has not been exposed to situations that he shouldn’t have been, continuing the narrative that one side is bad and the other is good. Placing him in a situation where he is not able to express any positive feelings for the paternal side of the family is very hard for him. It will affect his self-esteem and identity as his views become more entrenched.

It was difficult to say how a relationship could be practically achieved as it is was so long since she assessed the family, she hoped it would have moved on. It will be very difficult with the mother present as Benji would pick up on her reaction, the contact centre reports suggest that is what happened. It would need to be away from the mother, she has seen cases where the child objects and then away from the resident parent they start to build a relationship.

She has been involved in cases where there was a transfer of residence and the child has quickly been able to show loving feelings towards the other parent. She was not saying it should happen. She has also seen cases where children have struggled to settle, and also where they have and then contact with the other parent unsettles them. Another option would be to try again with alternate therapists. A further option might be to involve the paternal grandparents save they have been triangulated into the difficulties and are part of the bad family as far as Benji is concerned.

The situation is very hard for Benji, he has lived with the mother and maternal family all his life, he has been separated from his father for 4 years, his care needs are being met however he is being harmed by the current situation in terms of his psychological and emotional development. If the court agrees with her assessment, it is not insignificant. The evidence suggests to her Benji has been placed in a situation where he has had to reject his father, this is harmful to his ability to form relationships, to tolerate ambivalence, to understand that people can be both good and bad, have positive and negatives and that people don’t always agree to be on your side, and it will mean him disconnecting from certain parts of himself. It does increase his risk of mental health problems and meeting the criteria for personality disorders.

When considering Benji as a victim of domestic abuse, there were a number of factors; we need to consider his reaction to his father, from his perspective he may believe he is going to hurt him again and expose him to domestic abuse, but we also need to consider how likely that will be. She agrees with Dr Van Velsen that the parental relationship is complex. She did not wish to minimise the domestic abuse. The evidence is not suggestive of the father having a history of violence although he has had relationship problems. It was highly dysfunctional and toxic and the children witnessed it and were drawn into it by both parents and there is evidence suggestive of that continuing since separation.

She has dealt with cases involving organised crime, torture and with the survivors of disasters overseas who have experienced trauma. She has been involved in many family cases. She confirmed it is significant psychological and emotional harm that Benji is experiencing. She was jointly instructed and has borne the Reformatted Definitive Schedule of Findings and the father’s allegations of unreasonable conduct in mind. Domestic abuse training in the last five years has formed part of her general training in respect of working with children, it is part of safeguarding training and runs through her work with conflicted families.

If things remain as they are there is a risk of Benji developing significant psychological problems, she could not give a definitive figure, but an increased risk. There is a significant risk to him if he continues to feel he has to choose one parent or the other, deny his feelings for the paternal family and can’t develop autonomous thinking. This would have a significant impact on his development as his thinking would not develop in the normal way. He does put the paternal grandparents in the same box as the father.

The long-term consequence for Benji being brought up on the basis of what was said to the Guardian, ‘Benji was not half Indian and was not dual heritage as is being said in court,’ would be confusion as he gets older, it would deny him a huge part of his identity, and part of her concern is he may not view it positively, for example the paternal grandparents did not approve of the marriage, and his own cultural heritage is drawn in as a negative factor. He knows he is half Indian but has no connection to that part of his identity, he finds it very difficult to identify with it so he cuts it off, if it is portrayed as negative then it means he is bad or negative so he has to hide it suppress it and disconnect from it. If he regards himself as bad it will have a huge impact on his self-esteem. She did not understand from the mother she thought he was not Indian, rather he had lots of heritages. It would be bad for him if he thinks it is bad as he has no input from that side of the family as balance. His heritage is an additional factor to her concerns about him using a splitting defence.

In her second report she said there should be little in the way of preparation work before supervised contact, it is normally the best way of proceeding, as anxiety builds up as the prep work is done on the basis the parent is dangerous or the child is afraid, at the time he was not fearful but she doesn’t know how he is presenting now. Generally, the best way forward is to be clear the parent is not a risk, if that is the court’s finding, but without reassuring the child as if you reassure them they will be safe, it implies they are not safe and the parent isn’t safe. Her concern is Benji will know, he has been in the situation for 4 years, his difficulties may be for a number of reasons, in part because he knows what part he has to play and what to say, not necessarily because the mother is saying that to him but because he knows what he needs to do for her to be ok. It is still her preferred option, and it would still be best if the mother could support it. If the court found she couldn’t support contact, professionals would need to be used to build up the relationship and be with him before and after. It could be straight from school, not direct from mother’s house as that will affect him, in a community setting, somewhere supervised but where father is. An example is where the child was taken for a meal and father turned up and the child who objected to contact saw him and spoke to him as there had been no build up and they felt no constraint. She said his name being double barrelled is important for his identity psychologically. Her opinion was that his stated wishes and feelings were not his true feelings and that he didn’t show fear but anger.

If the therapist did not accept her analysis it was never going to work. She had anticipated they would draw a line under what had gone on in the past, on the basis contact had been ordered, and work with the family to rebuild the relationships. It is important Benji has the psychological tools to cope where there is good and bad in the same person. She was concerned about the proposal of a break for a year as she believes he is using a psychological defence to tolerate what is happening and it is harmful to his development.

The narrative he needs going forward is that what has happened is in the past. In an ideal world it would be given by his parents, but professionals can give it. He has heard things from the mother’s perspective and professionals working with the mother, it is a very difficult narrative for a child in terms of their understanding of family and where they come from. He needs a different one. It is important the roles are not reversed and the mother is painted as a bad person. He needs help to see these are his parents’ problems, things happened that shouldn’t have but this is the situation now, both parents love him and the adults agree he should spend time with his dad. The best person to do this would be the Guardian. It would be very damaging if Benji had been told things from before his birth that have become part of his life story.

In response to whether the MCMI iii test has been updated to iv, she agreed there was a new version but iii is still downloadable and used, it is one tool she used as part of her assessment, it has limitations if used as a diagnostic criteria. She has been using it for years and is her preference. It is not an outdated version it is a different version. It is a measure she is familiar with and she chooses to use it. It is not she didn’t want to pay for the updated version. She was not using it as a diagnostic tool, just to look at personality traits. As a Consultant Clinical Psychologist she was qualified to use the test, it was part of her doctorate training. She trains others in using the tests. She has discussed testing with peers during supervision, clinically rigorous discussions and not chats. She regularly updates herself. If she wasn’t qualified to use it she wouldn’t be able to download the tests. She is a member of Pearsons and if a test is outdated it is removed. She doesn’t have to be registered with BPS to provide the tests. She is not allowed to disclose the scores, she has provided the results but not the raw scores as they need to be interpreted by a professional. She cannot comment on the HCPC criticisms of others as she would need to look into them. She provides categories. She is not using the measures as a diagnostic tool. Some psychologists diagnose but she doesn’t, she considers her role is to provide explanations as to why someone behaves as they do.

She didn’t have the Definitive Schedule of Findings and Concessions Document dated 26 November 2021 when she met the parents. She was told it had been sent to her and she chased it. She had it when she filed her report in January 2022. She was aware findings had been made when she wrote her report as she had been told that by the mother and when she received the document she could see what they related to. She had to accept the findings of the court rather than the narrative given by either parent. The father had accepted he had been physically abusive in the findings. She had taken the findings into consideration and referred to them, albeit she had not set out the physical and emotional harm.

In her Addendum report she said she didn’t have access to the documents now available to her as she was given additional documents at that time, it is badly worded as she did have the Schedule at the time of writing her first report as she remembers chasing it. Benji’s presentation would always be due to a combination of factors, he was harmed by his experience of domestic abuse, but by other factors too, when she assessed him she saw a presentation due to other factors. At the time of the domestic abuse, he would have been affected emotionally, he would have been distressed by the things listed in the findings and the arguments. She had included his experiences of domestic abuse and gave her opinion based on the range of experiences he had. She didn’t have the Schedule when she assessed Benji, the fact he is a victim of domestic abuse is in the sentence where she acknowledges the findings. She doesn’t use the words victim and perpetrator as they are for the courts. The abuse would have been frightening and intimidating, people react in different ways, there are various types of domestic abuse and contexts in which they happen. It would have had a profound emotional impact at the time and on his ability to feel safe and secure. At the time the domestic abuse occurred the mother would have struggled, she didn’t use the words, ‘impact on her’ or go through the Schedule but has considered those matters.

She said children can align with a non-abusive parent or a perpetrator, she prefers not to use the word align, they can try and protect the one being abused, Benji is protective of his mother from the narrative. At the time she assessed, there was little to say the father posed a risk and she had factored in the findings.

She denied victim blaming the mother, she was talking about her insight into the dynamics of Benji refusing to see the father. The violence did have an impact on her negative perception of the father, but the lack of insight she was referring to was about the harm being caused to Benji intentionally or otherwise by his negative perception of the father. Her intention was to think of a way to help this little boy have a more balanced relationship with each parent. It was about a lack of insight and understanding of the harm being caused to Benji by holding a negative view of his father with none of the positives. He had a good balanced relationship with his father previously, he was having contact with the paternal family post separation, the Guardian referred to him smiling in videos after the events had occurred. It is important for him to have a future relationship that is good enough and where he can see the positives and negatives in each parent.

She denied attempting to rewrite history and invalidating his experiences, he shouldn’t be told the domestic abuse did not happen, it would have been very difficult for him, but that he had other positive experiences with his father. Children have an innate need to attach to their parents. The court would have to decide if the father posed a risk, if that were the case she wouldn’t be recommending contact. If he talks about his experiences with the father in a negative way she was not suggesting they be minimised, but Benji needs to hear the full picture, he doesn’t needs a narrative of what happened in the family before he was born, that is not minimising the domestic abuse, rather that he needs to know his father loves him, has positive qualities and to not see them as good and bad families.

Whist his experiences could explain why he felt angry with his father it was unlikely he would be expressing his anger in the way he is. All people react differently, often child victims of domestic abuse talk about guilt that they didn’t protect their parent, she has never assessed a child who made disclosures where they expressed anger to her. Benji was very bold, his reaction was very different, without her saying a great deal he went into telling her how bad his father was which, in her view, is highly unusual when children are not the subject of influence, he then started to look at pictures with no sign of distress and freely and easily spoke to her about his family.

Allegations of parental alienation can be used to exert control; she had taken that into account even if she had not written it as she cannot write everything. She has not accepted the father’s allegations but based her opinions on a range of evidence and her assessment of Benji. It was suggested it was not unusual for children witnessing domestic abuse to reenact it, she was aware D452 the mother had raised concerns about hitting kicking and biting. She didn’t see any evidence of such behaviour when she assessed him and the evidence of his interactions with other adults was not suggestive of him displaying these behaviours. He may have been copying his father or a number of things, it was not something raised as a problem by the school. When children act out it is often regarded as copying behaviour but actually, they are being triggered. The phrase, ‘You are not listening to me’ is using a phrase used by his mother rather than copying his father. She couldn’t recall specifically who she spoke to at school but would usually speak to the person who knows most about the child.

She had read the work undertaken with Benji by external agencies, including Action for Children, she had taken it into account. She has not ignored his past experiences, it was concerning he said, ‘Daddy is coming to destroy his toys’ she formed an opinion based on all the evidence. When she saw Benji, he was saying similar things a long time after these interventions. She was concerned four years later he was seeing the whole maternal family as positive and the whole paternal family as negative. The father and paternal grandparents were not always negative people to Benji all of the time, there were positive times. It is not a case of discounting what happened, equally you can’t discount any prior positive relationship. In her experience of working with children within child protection and assessing children who have suffered abuse, it is highly unusual for children to discount or reject parents. There is a range of academic evidence in support, every child is different, but most find it difficult to speak negatively about their parents.

She had considered the impact of domestic abuse on the mother, she had looked at if she had PTSD, she had suffered it at the time of the abuse, but it appeared from the psychometric testing and from what she said that she did not by that time. She didn’t challenge the father as to why he denied the abuse as she didn’t have the findings at the time. She allowed the parents to give her a narrative of what happened. The father did say Benji had seen distressing things, she didn’t ask him to specify as her interview was designed to elicit information. He talked of instances and things that had happened and she wanted to hear both parents’ perspective. She cannot say why he gave more specific details of the violence to Dr Van Velsen but she noted she raised the possibility that it was because he has had therapy. It is possible he was impression managing with her, but he would have known she would get the findings and is not sure he would have hidden it, if the court made findings in terms of his behaviour towards the mother since she had assessed him it would increase her concerns.

If the mother’s allegations about the paternal grandparents behaviour towards her and her children are found to be true it would have had a significant emotional impact on her and would contribute to her anxiety about them spending time with Benji. The father’s upbringing did impact the dynamics of the relationship with the mother. He did show her a video of contact, he didn’t say he had agreed to not record it, it is not good if he was told not to record it and he did.

She said narcissistic traits are often found in perpetrators of domestic abuse and histrionic traits are often found in people who don’t abuse others. It does not necessarily follow if you have narcissist and histrionic traits you would perpetrate domestic abuse, you often find compulsive traits in domestic abusers. She has spoken about it in terms of needing to have the upper hand and struggling not to, about needing to be in control and proving something. These are often linked to trying to create a positive impression which are consistent with the score on the desirability scale. Whilst it is not in the report these are often found in people who come from families where achievement is high, they are often found in Indian families, there is literature on the impact of culture on responding in a manner designed to create a favourable impression. She was not saying it doesn’t happen in other families. She usually puts a caveat on reports involving non-white British families that there is a need to consider the cultural aspects when interpreting results, for example in immigrant families where honour is a factor. The mother’s personality traits from the responses she gave are consistent with her being a victim. She didn’t use the International Trauma Questionnaire measure. At the time of the assessment, she wasn’t talking about those symptoms. She doesn’t diagnose, she may say someone has symptoms consistent with a diagnosis. The traits are those found in a domestic abuser and he was one. She denied she had identified the traits but failed to factor them into her conclusion.

She did meet Benji for 2 hours and showed him videos and photos. She didn’t seek the permission of the mother or the Guardian. She didn’t believe she acted outside the remit of the court, she has done it before and is aware of other professionals who do it. She did not ask for pictures and videos to use as evidence but as part of her assessment as she was not able to observe contact between the father and the child. She didn’t talk to the mother about the other things she was going to do in her assessment or it could be argued she was giving her the heads up. She has been asked similar questions in other cases. She asked the father when she met him if he could give her pictures and videos and doesn’t believe it was extraordinary conduct. The child’s reaction was not one of fear, he may know the difference between a photo and close proximity, but she would have expected a different reaction if he was afraid. She didn’t believe it was harmful. She has assessed children who have been abused and exposed to information, being assessed is part of that process, one could say that is harmful, she needed to get to a place where she knew what his reactions were. Benji didn’t show any signs he was afraid of his father before she showed him the photos or during her visit or when she showed him the photos, he easily spoke about his family.

Cafcass did raise concerns about the matter-of-fact way he spoke of the incident in April 2020, she was not saying if he was not crying he was not distressed, but children will usually be hesitant and uncomfortable talking about what parents have done. They can speak in a matter-of-fact way or seem to, but what is not typical is a child who shows no signs of discomfort or reluctance, children find it difficult to talk about a parent as they don’t want to get them into trouble or lose them or upset them. It was difficult to comment as she was not there, he was talking about spaghetti bolognaise, it could be taken that he is normalising the incident, but when she met him he was bold, he did not need to build a relationship with her, the literature notes this can happen when children are influenced. She is not victim stereotyping or minimising his experiences but his reactions and the impact on him now are not suggestive of him being afraid of his father. He disclosed in a bold way which is unusual for children who have been subject to trauma, it is what you often see when a child has been influenced and they have split themselves off from the bad parts.

She said a transfer of residence was not her recommendation, it was raised in the context of knowing how very difficult it is when cases become intractable. Her primary focus was on Benji having a normal relationship with both his parents and overcoming what he had experienced. She made suggestions about contact and therapeutic interventions to help work towards assuring Benji could have a relationship with both parents but said if they didn’t work a transfer of residence may be indicated. It was not something she wanted to happen. She accepted she had not carried out a balance of harm test in relation to a transfer of residence, as at the point the report was filed, she was not envisaging it being in the mix, parents do a range of things after receiving a report, often contact is reinstated or therapeutic input works. She is often called back to talk about such things. It would depend on what the court finds in terms of any harm being caused by psychological defences being utilised against the harm of him being removed from his mother. She didn’t want it to happen as it is very distressing and often you have to stop contact. There is not a great deal of empirical evidence or peer reviewed work on transfers of residence. She didn’t give the impression if there was a transfer all would be well, and nor would she recommend it lightly.

Splitting is a concept, a psychological defence, known about for many years, many articles have been written about it, it is not a diagnosis and nor has she said it is. It is a defence used to manage an untenable situation which she has recognised. When it was suggested, splitting can be driven by children who have experienced domestic abuse, she said people who have had traumatic experiences from childhood learn to dissociate from them and shut them out. On that analogy Benji would be shutting out and disconnecting from the bad things that had happened and would not be boldly talking about them. She had considered all the possibilities in her report alongside the findings, if the splitting were due to his experiences of the domestic abuse he would split off those experiences and disconnect, he would not boldly talk about them without any sign of distress. She agreed a child will often reject one parent as they don’t want the more vulnerable one to become more so, a child needs to be safe, so they do what they need to do to subconsciously regulate that parent. Equally, in terms of aligning with the most feared parent, if they are placed in a scenario where they can’t love both parents, they may align with the one they most fear as they don’t want to make them cross or be abandoned. She had considered all these matters and whether any splitting was as a result of the domestic abuse. She denied blaming the mother, at the time she did not think she was doing it deliberately.

In relation to her concerns about Benji developing later psychological issues, she used those phrases regularly, as later psychological problems are a risk for all children of all ages. She was not making any diagnosis of a personality disorder. She knows of people with personality disorders who have used psychological defences to cope with difficult experiences and it increases the risk of personality disorders. She provides assessments and therapy for people who have been diagnosed with personality disorders, she is qualified to say if his experiences continue it will increase the risk, as it will make it very difficult for him to have healthy relationships in the future if he has to put people in good and bad categories and cannot tolerate ambivalence.

She disagreed she copies and pastes her reports, fails to consider individual needs, or sees all cases through a lens of splitting and personality disorders. She treats every case on its individual merits and looks at the family as a whole. She uses some phrases regularly but does not apply the same conclusion to everyone. As with a surgeon who provides reports, there may be elements which are very similar, the language she may have used in other reports where she has found evidence of the use of psychological splitting.

She denied she had made findings of parental alienation, she said what she had done was set out what evidence was suggestive to her of undermining the relationship with the father. She calls it influencing behaviour, the evidence is suggestive of it, she doesn’t think she has used the term alienating behaviour. She doesn’t know what the mother says to the child. She hasn’t diagnosed parental alienation. There is a lot of controversy as people refer to it as a diagnosis and people are not qualified to do so. She has opined what evidence is suggestive to her, she has not made a finding or diagnosed anything. She is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist with many years of experience assessing adults and children, she has given her opinion of what she has seen and it is a matter for the court to decide. She was asked questions in 2021 and she has answered them to the best of her ability. She hasn’t given a definitive on anything and has given an opinion on what she saw.

She had said no preparation work was needed, she didn’t believe that approach was harmful, what was happening was more harmful based on her assessment of Benji, preparation work would have increased his anxiety, in cases where children may be influenced if the preparation goes on and on they become more anxious. The notes show a little boy who is distressed but it is for the court to decide what the distress is to do with. It does not look like fear. Benji could be upset for a number of reasons. Benji was confident enough to tell his dad he didn’t want to see him, his dad was able to apologise for things Benji and the family had witnessed. Benji was not showing fear it is sadness. When he was hugging his knees, his distress cannot be attributed to his lived experience of domestic abuse. She does not believe she got her recommendations wrong, Benji’s difficulties with contact are due to the position he is placed in in terms of his relationship with his father. He has experienced domestic abuse, but it is due to the whole situation and he is caught in the middle of his two parents. His daddy is there, he has to tell him he will not see him anymore because it is too hard to manage the idea that daddy is bad but might not be, he needs to see him as bad to manage his own cohesion.

The therapists were critical of the unequal time she spent with the parents and the approach she took to Benji. She allowed the time needed, a psychological assessment is for the parents to present their own perspective, if she needs extra time she spends it. A therapist is in a very different role to an expert witness, what she does is in accordance with her role and whether she needs to build up a therapeutic relationship. Whilst domestic abuse was his lived experience, he was not wary and they did not need to build up a relationship, he told her in almost the first sentence his father was a bad person. They were critical of her sharing photos, she does this to assess a child in the absence of observing contact, other experts do it. They do criticise her expertise; her expertise is in PTSD, victims of torture and disasters and she works with adults, children, and families, she has been giving evidence in the family courts for many years in respect of cases of abuse and exposure to domestic violence. She disagreed her recommendations have caused Benji emotional harm, the harm is being caused by him not having a relationship with both his parents, she does not agree she has minimised the domestic abuse he has suffered, it is for the court to decide if she has failed in her duties as an expert.

She had read that the mother said she now positively supported contact with the paternal family. Benji is entrenched and relationships had not formed as she had hoped. The disputed racist and derogatory comments were a matter for the court. It would be beneficial for Benji to have a relationship with the paternal family. The focus has been on the adult relationships and they have been conflating past issues with what is best for Benji. The parents do need to move on. In the meeting with Benji in December 2021 he saw photos of his grandparents and said his grandad made massive bubbles, and referred to his grandmother as Dadima (a Hindi word for grandmother), she knew Leah had taught him that word. He showed no distress as he chatted about them, there was a disconnect between his reaction to the photos, the way he discussed them and what he said by way of negative comments. Benji did place cards of people he wanted to hit, these were both paternal grandparents, his father and Mr Nobody. He was not able to remember any negative comments, he said it was a long time ago. She felt there was a rehearsed quality to his speech. It was 19 months since his last video call with them but it was significant he was able to have positive discussions, his reactions showed he had positive feelings for them, he could readily speak about them and his facial expressions, what children say needs to be matched by how they look, when he was making negative comments it was not emotional congruent. When he was looking at the photographs of his grandparents it was like he had forgotten himself, he was more animated, when talking about who was in the pictures and where they were at the time. By emotional congruence she meant negative comments versus his reactions. If a child is telling you something disturbing, she would expect them to be fearful, upset, for it to be obvious from their facial expressions or she would expect them to say it quietly, Benji was bold, there was a big disparity. When he was talking about his grandparents it felt natural, not like when he spoke about his father, he said ‘That’s me and Grandad’ it felt spontaneous, even when talking about dad and spiderman, me and grandad just felt spontaneous, she felt like she was seeing Benji, but it didn’t last. The contact centre did show him the photos 5 months later, he did say one was missing and had no negative reaction. In the Professionals meeting in July 2023 a contact supervisor did specifically make the point about his reaction to his grandparents, that he had made no negative comments and was laughing at some of the photos. She has read the Guardian’s final analysis. She was not surprised by the comments he made, ‘they are on his side’ and ‘that stupid manwho ruined my life they brought him up,’ bearing in mind all that had gone before and her assessment. They are adult comments. She did identify concerns of adultification in her report. The mother did say she didn’t want to put a strain on their relationship by encouraging contact. The mother’s comments to the Guardian that ‘she would not have a problem if it was supervised but that Benji was not positive about them and sees them as a unit with his father,’ the terminology mirrors what Benji said about them being on his side. She was always concerned Benji would become more entrenched if the matter was not quickly resolved in January 2022. They need to think carefully about how to move matters forward for this little boy. The mother’s suggestion of four video calls between Benji and the grandparents with her supervising would not move things forward as he would be unable to show his true feelings. On the basis of what she has read it does not need to be supervised, unless the court feels the grandparents pose a risk, she has not assessed them, the Guardian is positive about them being able to be quite balanced, they have his welfare at heart and at least verbally are able to express an ability to put his needs over that of their son. Videocalls are not the best way to re-establish the relationship. She was concerned about how it would be re-established unless the mother has a change of stance due to how entrenched he is, his whole world is one narrative, he may love them but she was worried he would compartmentalise it, he may show some positives, she hopes he would, but it’s gone far beyond when she saw him and when the contact centre did and he was looking at the photographs. Benji has given no reason for him to be afraid of his grandparents apart from the fact they are his father’s parents and will be on his side, someone needs to talk to him in a very child focused way to help him with a different narrative, that things did happen, but his grandparents were nothing to do with it, and then contact needs to happen very quickly. He will object, it is the role he plays, if it is gradually built up it will cause him more anxiety than attempting it quickly, it needs to be in a venue with activities he will enjoy, whether it is sustainable she doesn’t know, as if he softens and allows his true feelings to come through, she is not sure he will be able to sustain it when he goes home, the mother could help him with it. The mother supervising direct contact was not a way to progress matters in this case. There needs to be a child focussed discussion with Benji it needs to be along the lines suggested by the Guardian, that the father is an adult he made decisions, it was not the fault of the grandparents, they are not responsible for what he has done as they are separate people, albeit he sees them as a unit. Benji needs to hear what happened shouldn’t have happened, his parents didn’t get on and his father did things, but the father loves him as his mother does, he will not hurt him or break his toys and his grandparents have never done anything like that. He needs to have a change in the narrative and it would help if the Guardian was involved in that discussion.

The mother makes a raft of criticisms/allegations about Dr Downs that require consideration. It is evident from her CV and from what she told the court she is an expert of many years experience, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist since 2002, albeit not one previously known to this court.

She was instructed following a C2 dated 19 October 2021 by the child’s Guardian on behalf of the parties, all of whom were legally represented. The application was accompanied by a CV and draft letter of instruction . The letter sets out the duties of independent expert and notes ‘..It is essential both to the Court and the parties’ perception of your independent status, that there are not informal unrecorded discussions or correspondence with any of the professionals or lay parties involved in the case. If you need further information please contact the Lead Solicitor ..who will provide it after consultation with the other legal advisors involved. If documents are exchanged with one party please copy them to all the others..’ She is reminded, ‘Unless you are specifically requested to do so, you should please avoid expressing a view regarding the factual disputes as this is the provenance of the Judge at the hearing. Where appropriate it would be of assistance where you are able to express your opinion on the basis of alternative findings regarding the factual dispute.’

She was informed a fact-finding hearing was taking place in the week of 22 November 2021. The instructions are as follows:

The instruction was approved by District Judge Russell on 22 October 2021 on the basis Dr Downs would file her report after the completion of the fact-finding hearing on 23 December 2021. The order records ‘The report is necessary for the purpose of assessing contact.’ She filed her report on 4 January 2022. Looking at the matter now, with benefit of a holistic overview of the case, it may have been better had the instruction of Dr Downs awaited the outcome of the fact-finding hearing in the sense it would have allowed direct questions to be put about the concessions made by both parents and the issues that flowed from them, albeit I appreciate it was made in the context of minimising delay in circumstances where the case had already been going on for 17 months.

The agreed schedule of findings and concessions is dated 21 November 2021. It is unfortunate that Dr Downs’ appointments with the parties took place without her having a copy of the document, I realise that was not the fault of anybody as it is clear it was sent by the child’s solicitor on 26 November 2021 at 3pm to Carter Brown, ahead of the assessment on Monday 29 November 2021 with the mother and Tuesday 30 November 2021 with the father. Dr Downs clearly did not receive it as she chased it up herself through Carter Brown on 17 December 2021, she was sent further documentation by the child’s solicitor on 17 December 2024, and she further chased it up as the relevant documents had been omitted which the child’s solicitor sent on 20 December 2021. There is no doubt she was aware of the existence of the document during both assessments as during the mother’s lengthy interview she explained all about the fact-finding hearing and concessions document and said, ‘to have this was great because it was validation for Leah and Benji these things did happen.’ Furthermore, despite the challenges raised in cross-examination, there is no doubt she had it by the time she wrote her report as she refers to it ‘There is evidence from the court documents and the results from a finding of fact hearing…’ I appreciate it may have been better if she had set the findings out in full, but it is incorrect to suggest that she had not referred to them. She was very clear in her live evidence she had them and had taken them into consideration. She filed a second report 14 February 2022 following questions from the parties as to practicalities around her recommendations, and I note it was not until 4 August 2022, when the mother filed an application for a stay did she raise any concerns about the report.

In terms of the criticisms in the position statement filed on behalf of the mother that Cafcass recommended Dr Downs through the Guardian, contrary to the statement they gave the Guardian newspaper in 2022 for the article ‘Parental Alienation and the Unregulated Experts Shattering Children’s Lives’ that they don’t instruct experts, and there ‘appears to be a pattern of guardians instructing psychologists who are parental alienation proponents to opine on contested concepts such as parental alienation in cases where there are findings of domestic abuse,’ I reject it entirely. On any reading of her CV she does not appear to be an obvious choice for this case, to that extent the comments, albeit unsolicited, of the therapist at least on the surface seem to have some force. Her specialist interest is stated to be in ‘complex psychological reactions to trauma and I currently provide input as a Specialist Psychological Support Advisor to the British Red Cross and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Emergency Response Team. This involves supporting British Embassy staff overseas in assisting British Nationals affected by manmade and natural disasters. I have also worked with military personnel.’ It is difficult to see how the mother’s allegation, namely that Cafcass deliberately instruct experts with a particular interest in parental alienation, gets off the ground as ‘parental alienation’ is notably absent from her CV. The Guardian explained in evidence she had been instructed in one previous case she had been involved in where ‘Honour Based Violence’ was an issue and had been approached in this case as, at the time, that was an issue being raised by the mother. She had never met her and had never heard her give evidence before this case. I accept that and reject suggestions she was approached due to being a ‘parental alienation proponent’ which she is clearly not. Dr Downs agreed, in response to the mother’s questions, that in the majority of cases where she is instructed, the lead solicitor is the child’s solicitor, I am unsurprised by that, in my experience they are often the lead either for neutrality purposes or because, in private law cases, they are the only lawyers. I reject any suggestion of a link here either between Dr Downs and Cafcass or the expert and the Guardian.

It is important to note under ‘Areas of Expertise’ under the heading ‘Adults’ she lists ‘Risk Assessments appertaining to abuse and neglect-physical, emotional or sexual abuse neglect and Domestic Violence’. Under the categories ‘Families’ and ‘Children’ she lists ‘Family Dynamics,Attachment, Ability to prioritise child needs, Impact of abuse and neglect, Child’s wishes and feelings (in respect of contact for example)’. She goes on to say under the heading Reports, ‘I have prepared reports for the family courts since 2003. These reports have involved the assessment of parents and children covering the following areas: Public Law assessments of children and adults, Private Law assessments of children and adults and Risk Assessment of parents pertaining to abuse and neglect.’ Having listened to her over 7 hours of live evidence it was apparent she has a wealth of experience in family cases, and that her expertise in dealing with adult and child victims of abuse and trauma made her eminently suitable for this case, where the mother and the children have been victims of domestic abuse.

In support of the previous criticism it was said on behalf of the mother in her position statement that, ‘The LOI drafted by the Guardian’s solicitor failed to even mention that serious allegations of domestic abuse were made by mother and later serious findings were made and instead focused on parental alienation. This obscured the factual matrix of the case.’ Whilst already recognising the benefits of a delayed instruction such a statement is simply not correct. The only question that makes any reference to the allegations made by the parties is iv. Your opinion as to the family dynamics between the adults and the impact, if any, upon their ability to care for the child: and including each parents behaviour towards the other in terms of each parent having a relationship with the child in light of the father’s concerns as to alienating behaviours and mother’s concerns in respect of the significant impact of the father’s behaviour towards both herself and the child. It is, if nothing else, a very balanced question putting equal emphasis on both parties’ concerns and does not fail to mention the allegations of domestic abuse or focus on parental alienation. It may be the better criticism would have been it was so delicately put, the expert couldn’t really know what she was being asked to do.

I move now to the specific criticisms. The mother asked numerous written questions about what complaints the expert had received, and it was explored at length in cross-examination. Many professionals have to deal with complaints including judges barristers and experts, just because a complaint is made does not mean it is justified. Here the fact the mother made a complaint about the expert just before the final hearing is irrelevant to my assessment of the expert, as is whether another client of the mother’s counsel had done the same. It may have been of relevance had findings been made against her, albeit they would inevitably have been case specific, but I am satisfied they have not been and accept what she said in writing on 3 October 2024, ‘I confirm there have not been any findings against me in relation to my professional conduct.’

In relation to the numerous written questions and time spent in cross-examination as to Dr Downs’ qualifications to complete psychometric testing, whether she was registered to do so, why she had used test MCMIiii as opposed to MCMIIiv and her failure to provide the test data, I struggled to understand the point of these criticisms. Dr Downs is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, she was asked specifically in the letter of instruction to carry out such testing, I accept she is qualified to do so, does not need to be registered with BPS to provide the tests and it is a matter of professional judgment what test she uses and accept that the test would not be downloadable if it had been withdrawn. She has produced Pearson policies on test materials protected copyright and trade secret law, ‘this position is consistent with our longstanding practice of ensuring through our terms and conditions of use, that all purchasers have the appropriate qualifications to administer and interpret the test materials being purchased and that such purchaser maintain the confidentiality of the test materials’ but in any event I agree with Dr Downs that the raw data would be of no use to the mother whatsoever and would need to be interpreted by someone qualified to complete the testing. She was clear in her live evidence she was not using the measures as a diagnostic tool, which immediately distinguishes this case from the once cited which related to a different professional, who it was said had conducted an expert psychological assessment of a mother, which resulted in comments being made about a possible personality disorder, he been suspended following findings he acted outside his remit, with the mother in that case making an application to re-open the findings made against her in the case. The case bears no relation to this one in any event. However what I do not understand is this, the testing as readily agreed by Dr Downs, supported the concessions and the mother’s narrative, namely the father is a perpetrator and the mother is a victim, the mother had already relied on those findings in her statement filed last year when she described the father as ‘narcissistic’ and the father was cross examined by mother’s counsel at length as to the traits the testing highlighted and the fact they were correct, I struggle therefore as to the criticism the mother was trying to make.

She is criticised for sharing photos and videos of the father and paternal family with the child not provided by the Lead solicitor, it was suggested she was ‘acting outside her remit andrecruiting a positive image of a perpetrator parent and child which was entirely irrelevant to her assessment and thus not provided to her by the parties.’ She readily accepted she had asked the father to provide them and had shown photographs and videos to the child as ‘part of her assessment as she was not able to observe contact between the father and the child.’ She agreed she had not sought the permission of the mother or the Guardian and ‘didn’t talk to the mother about the other things she was going to do in the assessment or it could be argued she was giving her the heads up’. She had done this before and was aware of other professionals who did it. I am satisfied it was indeed part of her assessment, and note her instructions asked her to provide a report ‘based upon interviews observations (to include contact)..’ and in the absence of that, I accept this was the only other method by which she could seek to understand Benji’s reactions to his father and paternal family. She was not acting outside her remit or ‘recruiting a positive image of a perpetrator parent and child’ nor did she need the prior permission of the mother, who I am sure would have refused, or the Guardian to do so, however in accordance with the duties of an independent expert, as initially sent to her, ‘If documents are exchanged with one party please copy them to all the others’ it would have been good practice to have done that upon receipt. I should add I am satisfied there are no undisclosed communications between the father and Dr Downs. It is in fact the mother’s solicitors, no doubt acting on the mother’s instructions, who have breached the terms of the instruction that there should be no ‘correspondence with any of the professionals or lay parties involved in the case’ save through the Lead solicitor by sending a long list of questions direct to the expert, via Carter Brown, in addition to the agreed questions via the consent order dated 30 September 2024 and on the same day.

A further criticism is that following the mother’s subject access request Dr Downs denied having retained notes from the clinical interviews with the mother but after a court order ‘apparently discovered handwritten notes which were provided but are illegible.’ It is quite clear fromreading the correspondence which was between the mother and Dr Downs’ assistant that on the initial request she had simply looked at the electronic file and disclosed what was on it. It was only when a second request came in and Dr Downs herself became involved, she remembered the handwritten notes and readily disclosed them. I don’t think there was anything sinister in this at all. It was of note that despite a Subject Access Request Bundle running to 130 pages it was not referred to once in cross-examination.

The next criticism is that Dr Downs made a diagnosis of parental alienation, which is not capable of diagnosis and ‘not recognised in DSM-V or ICD 11 WHO.’ In her summary of conclusions she says ‘During my assessment of Benji there was evidence to indicate that he is being influenced in his negative perception of his father.’ I note she states in her report, ‘it will be necessary for the court to determine whether Benji’s anxiety towards his father is justified, based on his own experiences of his father’s behaviour, or whether it is the result of influence by his mother.’ She says, ‘It will be for the court to determine whether Benji’s objections to having contact with his father and his stated fears are justified or disproportionate. Further down she says, ‘In order to find an effective solution it will be necessary for the court to determine whether Benji’s anxiety to his father is justified based on his own experiences of his father’s behaviour or whether the result of influence by his mother. She set out alternate causes for alienation reactions. She confirmed in her written response to the mother’s questions on 3 October 2024, ‘I have not diagnosed Benji with alienating type behaviour’ and reiterated that in court on many occasions. I accept the point that her summary of conclusions in this respect could perhaps have been more carefully worded, but having considered the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that what she did in her report was set out the evidence which was suggestive to her of an undermining of the relationship with the father and paternal family. She recognised the controversy around the subject, and of alienating behaviours being referred to as a diagnosis and unqualified people making them and having ‘given her opinion of what she has seen’ was very clear it was matter for the court to determine.

She is criticised for making a diagnosis of splitting ‘which is not a psychological condition under DSM-V or ICD’ and that she stated he was at ‘risk of developing psychiatric personality disorders which is a matter of psychiatric expertise.’ In the summary of conclusions she said, ‘It was also clear that he is utilising the psychological defence of splitting which is suggestive of him being pressured into aligning with his mother and devaluing/rejecting his father. She very clear in her written response to the mother’s questions on 3^rd October 2024, ‘There has been no diagnosis of splitting. Spitting is a psychological defence and therefore a diagnosis cannot be made. As with most psychologists we tend to provide a formulation of the difficulties rather than a diagnosis.’ I note the mother herself in her live evidence said she agreed with splitting and that Dr Downs had said it could happen due to domestic abuse. I acknowledge she said that, but she also went on to explain why, in Benji’s case, she did not think that was the reason, namely he would be shutting down and disconnecting from the bad things and would not be talking about them in a bold way. However if that is what the mother is saying, I am not sure why so much of the courts time has been spent on criticising the expert in relation to her comments about splitting as a concept. I again accept the point that her summary of conclusions in this respect could perhaps have been more carefully worded, but having considered the totality of the evidence I am satisfied she was not diagnosing splitting just highlighting evidence she felt was suggestive of the utilisation of such a defence, the fact of which was a matter for the court to determine. I am also satisfied she was not making diagnoses of future personality disorders, just highlighting increased risks, which as a psychologist I am satisfied she is qualified to do, not least as she told the court she works with clients with personality disorders who have previously struggled with splitting.

A further criticism is she that she ‘recommended a transfer of residence from a victim parent to a perpetrator parent.’ I am satisfied she did not do that. In her report she said, ‘should it be decided that a therapeutic route to resolution is contraindicated, as indicated by the failure to manifest the required behavioural changes, it may be necessary to use an alternative strategy such a transfer of primary residence or a suspended change of residence.’ She was very clear in her evidence that the comment was in the context of acknowledging how very difficult it is when cases become intractable and that she had not completed a balance of harm assessment as she hoped matters would move on and if not she would be re-instructed to do so.

It is said she failed to consider the findings of domestic abuse and thus her analysis is flawed and that she ‘ignored and/or minimised Benji’s lived experiences of domestic abuse and instead attempted to undermine the impact of the findings of domestic abuse on Benji by blaming the victim parent for pressuring Benji to align with his mother and devalue/reject his father, without any reliable clinical evidence.’ Whilst I have already acknowledged it was unfortunate she did not have the schedule of findings when she spoke to the parties, as if she had she could have discussed their reactions to it, it could be argued the situation was unfair to the father, in the sense she was told far more by the mother in terms of her narrative of the father’s behaviour than was ever found by the court by way of the schedule of findings. The mother provides pages of detail of the domestic abuse, she describes the child’s worries and nightmares alongside his behaviour which she says is Benji copying his father and his panic attacks. It is simply not the case that the expert did not know about the domestic abuse, quite apart from what she had been told by the parents in interview, she had been sent the bundle. It was clear from her comments she was well aware of the findings as she details them, ‘It is evident from the court documentation and the results of a finding of fact hearing have provided significant evidence to suggest the relationship between Benji’s parents was dysfunctional and that both parents have failed to protect the child from exposure to volatile behaviour. There is evidence to suggest the father has drawn the children into the acrimony by making inappropriate statements about their mother and telling Leah to fuck off back to Ireland,’ while she doesn’t set out the individual findings of physical abuse against the mother, she is clearly aware of them, and of the mother’s position, notwithstanding the concessions she herself made, ‘she places blame for the harm to the children with him and spoke about feeling afraid of him.’ She concentrates on the effect on Benji, ‘There is evidence to suggest Benji was caused harm due to exposure to the acrimony within the parental relationship’ and explores levels of insight and responsibility with both, D440 ‘The father was able to acknowledge his own part in the harm caused to Leah and Benji whist also apportioning some of the blame to the dynamics within his relationship with the mother. The mother tended to project the blame for the breakdown of the relationship largely onto the father and appeared to lack insight into the part she is playing in the harm caused to Benji in terms of his negative perception of the father’ and ‘both parents made allegations regarding the other and these are documented within the court papers. In terms of their ability to parent the children both parents struggled to protect the children from harm due to their exposure to their acrimonious relationship when they were together. The father also struggled to protect Leah and Benji from harm due to expressing negative comments to them. Both parents are able to acknowledge that their relationship was toxic and the father was able to acknowledge his own difficulty in controlling his anger within the relationship. He spoke about the therapy he had had in order to make sense of and address his difficulties.’ Whilst I acknowledge it may have been good practice to set out the findings,ideally she would have discussed them with the parties, and her report could have been set out in a way to make her consideration of this issue clearer, I have no doubt both from the report and from listening to her in evidence, that she was very aware of the findings of domestic abuse, she readily acknowledged the effect on both the mother and Benji, she accepted he had been harmed by them, but identified factors, based on the totality of the evidence and her own assessment of Benji, that she felt could be influencing the child’s behaviour, the determination of which was a matter for the court.

I had the benefit of both listening to and directly observing Dr Downs in the courtroom whilst she gave evidence over a period of about 7 hours, as opposed to the parties and counsel who chose to attend remotely on that day. It gave me a unique opportunity to assess not only her credibility but her motivations as an expert. She was not what could be described as a slick witness who gave an immediate smooth response, she was a very thoughtful measured and reflective witness, who took the time to understand the question, which was not always easy due to the technical difficulties the courtroom was experiencing, she took care to read in the bundle what was being put her, which was logistically difficult with 8 large bundles, and took on a few occasions some time to consider what was being asked of her before responding. She was cross examined over an extensive period of time with criticism after criticism being put to her in the full gaze of two members of the press, who did not attend the hearing again after her evidence was completed. She was continually accused of failing to consider the domestic abuse, that she had ignored the child’s past experiences, that she was victim blaming the mother, that she was attempting to rewrite history and that she was suggesting Benji’s experiences were not valid. Irrespective of criticisms about the format of the report or her choice of words on occasions, I have to consider her evidence holistically, whatever was put to the expert on behalf of the mother, it was evident she had already considered it, and if she was discounting it, she explained why she had done so. I also think it is important to go back to the question she was asked to consider, ‘Your opinion as to the family dynamics between the adults and the impact, if any, upon their ability to care for the child: and including each parents behaviour towards the other in terms of each parent having a relationship with the child in light of the fathers concerns as to alienating behaviours and mothers concerns in respect of the significant impact of the father’s behaviour towards both herself and the child,’ it is difficult to say she didn’t answer that question. Her focus was on Benji, Dr Van Velsen of coursewasbrought in to complete a psychiatric risk assessment of the father and a psychiatric assessment of the mother including the impact of the father’s behaviour on her. As the hours passed listening to Dr Downs I was left in no doubt she was not someone who was pushing any agenda, but an experienced careful expert, who was genuinely very troubled by the situation this child was in and who was anxious to give her best evidence to the court in a fair and balanced way to try and assist this little boy.

I am invited on behalf of the mother to disregard her report in relation to her comments on alienating behaviours and splitting as per KM and Anor (Findings of Fact Hearing: Parental Alienation) 2024 EWFC 260 and instead to focus on the evidential value of what the parents told her. I am not of the view that Dr Downs did ‘diagnose’ either alienating behaviours or splitting, neither of which are diagnosable in any event, the former being a matter of fact for the court and the latter being a psychological defence. I am satisfied what she did do was highlight factors for the court to consider, albeit in places her report could have been written in clearer language, and having heard from her, I am satisfied she has taken all matters into account, albeit these could have been set out in her report more clearly in a way to allay the fears of the parties, particularly the mother. In circumstances where alienating behaviours and psychological defences that may flow from them, are factual matters for the court, I would not be relying on any opinion she had about these matters in any event. PD12J makes it very clear expert assessments are relevant at the point the court applies the welfare checklist and makes welfare determinations and that is where her report may become relevant. The real difficulty it seems to me with Dr Downs report, which was not really commented on by any party, is the fact it is now approaching three years old.

Dr Van Velsen is a Consultant Adult Psychiatrist. She completed an assessment dated 14 February 2022 and addendum reports on 10 October 2024, 16 January 2024 and 30 January 2024.

She said she had been asked to complete a risk assessment in respect to both parents, she had indicated she did not know what PD12J was and did not take it into account. She said it was good practice to set out the findings and she had taken them all into account. She had summarised the findings of Dr Downs, she had read her report and it had informed her assessment. The mother had reported the impact of the proceedings, it was not for her to say if the application for residence had destabilised her, both parents were so sensitised to each other anything could be destabilising. The mother had been regularly engaging with her GP, it was positive, the proceedings have impacted her mental health. She did describe her issues as situational, if court ends you would expect her mental health to improve. She did say she was pre-occupied with the court proceedings; it is not for her to say if she demonstrated real and genuine fear of the father. She felt she had PTSD symptoms, but they didn’t make for a diagnosis, it is an anxiety disorder, the PTSD symptoms are part of that. She felt she could consider antidepressants to help her mood and increase her stability and general psychotherapy, not trauma therapy, to help her with the situation and symptoms.

In relation to the father, she did explore his anger management issues, they talked about issues in the work situation and previous relationships which were volatile. His propensity was not out with the normal, a lot of people, men, can be quick to anger and can have volatile relationships. She thought his vulnerability in the context of the relationship made it worse, it did not start off in a stable way, when the two of them got involved, they resonated each others difficulties and it created a toxic relationship. There were findings of physical abuse, they will have been frightening for her and the findings included her daughter and Benji observing it. She explored anger management issues with the father, and not just him but issues of volatility within his family. He is in psychotherapy, his issues did not need specific therapy, he needed to see someone on an ongoing basis to explore issues. She had spoken the father’s therapist, she couldn’t remember if she had had the Schedule of Findings, she had recommended disclosure of her report which contained them. He did allege the mother had physically assaulted him, she told both parents at times that they had to stick to what had been found, it was not her role to explore further.

As to whether she was concerned if a perpetrator thinks they are the victim, she said it is the character of the couple that they both feel victims, he feels the victim of the proceedings, it is not helpful, both are so entrenched it makes it difficult for them to collaborate and co-parent with the focus on Benji, it has been going on a very long time and both contribute to it. She said it was not for her to comment on whether the father presented himself as a victim, it indicated a lack of insight, she didn’t make it part of her risk formulation, it was very common for people to make counter allegations. She tried to address his insight into his behaviour, because of the proceedings it is difficult for him to fully reflect on the impact of what he did, if she were to talk about mentalisation, being attuned to the feelings of others, it comes and goes depending on the circumstances. In the context of their very conflictual relationship both parents lost the capacity to mentalise about the other’s experiences. She agreed with the father’s therapist that when the father gets into a certain mental state there is a breakdown, in the moment, of his ability to mentalise and he can’t monitor how he is being experienced.

She said she had explored his upbringing, families differ in the way they relate, some are avoidant and others are lacking in affect, his involved blow ups and styles can be replicated in relationships as you grow up, although not always as people can develop to correct the family script. There was perhaps some replication for him as he said how his family were upset by the relationship, he fell out with his sister who refused to meet her.

She had referred to the issue of him viewing her LinkedIn profile and accessing photos on a shared google drive after his bail conditions ended, but she had no opinion on it. It was suggested to her that if the court found he did these things and was aggressive in the Our Family Wizard communication it would increase the risk, she said in a way it was the essence of these proceedings, two parents who get into very unhelpful and conflictual ways of communicating. She said you had to ask the risk of what ? They have been separated for years, he had never gone to her house, the LinkedIn is not a pattern, you have to think of the risk of what and to whom? Even if there was aggressive communication you have to ask what is the risk ? As she said in her report they are not going to reconcile, the issue is what is the risk to Benji. She was told the issue was the risk to the mother as a victim of domestic abuse, she said they have not been in a relationship for years, the risk comes if they reunite or if there is behaviour such as going to her home, her understanding was the court was concerned about contact to Benji and not ex-partners. In relation to Our Family Wizard communications, there may be a better method, she is not a child psychologist, but you could say the reason the father becomes so frustrated is because it has gone on so long, if he had been having regular contact for the last 2-3 years we would not be in the situation we are now. His responses are linked to the situation, he becomes angry in certain situations in the workplace and in relationships. He doesn’t have a personality disorder or anti-social behaviour, there is no criminality, there is no forensic history of being violent in other situations, he has worked in a lot of offices, he comes in the low-risk category.

She said the court needs to ask itself what the risk to Benji is, whilst she would never say there is no risk, all she can do is describe the features that increase and decrease the risk. Increased risk is continued frustration and reconciliation which they are not going to do. An added complication is Benji says he doesn’t want contact but that is not for her, she is a forensic psychiatrist making a risk formulation, which is what she has done in her report.

She was asked about the mother’s subjective feelings, she said she does not want him to have contact and becomes anxious if there is any suggestion he might. It was suggested she feels frightened, Dr Van Velsen said if one goes by that, any parent could say that, and no child would ever have contact. She said men in prison have contact, on the basis of these parents, her psychiatric opinion is it is not particularly high risk. She doesn’t want him to have contact, she is anxious, maybe the Wizard App was not working, she doesn’t know as she hasn’t seen it.

She agreed the father had been less specific to Dr Downs than her about the violence but she had explored it in terms of the fact his therapy had made a difference. The father had accepted he had harmed Benji by doing it in front of him, you would have to ask a child expert if he would have been affected, but she is aware he is a victim under the Domestic Abuse Act.

She agreed she had been involved in a Professionals Meeting on 12 July 2023. She had felt it was not the right time at that moment to add in the paternal grandparents, she felt there was a lot going on, she had been hopeful things could be more resolved and it would be helpful to wait before adding them in. She was aware of what the mother alleged about the way they treated her and the derogatory language, it was very clear there had been tension and hostility from the paternal family early on in the relationship, linked to the fact he had been engaged to someone else when he started the relationship, if the language was used it would not help trust, but it would have been part of them not liking each other.

She agreed that in her Addendum she had suggested therapeutic feedback be given in another way, which is why she often does it, as here with the father’s therapist, she speaks to the therapist and then produces a report including the therapy, so as to not interfere with the therapeutic process. The therapists had recommended a break, but she didn’t follow that as it was what was happening anyway, a delay in the proceedings so the family could do the work, she had never heard of it before in all the hundreds of reports she had done for the family court, as you would still have to come back to the issue of contact.

The therapists had said the father should do a DAPP, but she does not think he is appropriate for it, there has been a suspension of the programmes anyway. She did not think it was the right fit for his level of severity, he doesn’t have a pattern of chronic violence in his character which many men who do the DAPP do. It is much more important he is helped to think about the impact of his behaviour on Benji and is helped with his parenting. A DAPP is not appropriate. It is absolutely correct you do not need a conviction to be referred but you do need a distinct pattern of violence or coercive control. It was suggested he had a pattern of being quick to violence, she said in her opinion, not to the severity that she would refer to a DAPP, the seriousness and significance would have to not be situational. The father does need ongoing therapy to keep considering how he is experienced by others. If it was found his approach to the My Family Wizard communications were not appropriate, he could work on it with his therapist which would be more effective.

It was suggested that her view was influenced by the fact she had said at the experts meeting that violent offenders, including those in prison have contact with their children, she said that the idea that a father who has committed an offence should never have contact with his children does not make sense, albeit it does in some situations. It should be possible in a situation like this for some creativity to be used to enable them to co-parent. From a psychiatric forensic point of view there are not the characteristics here to say he should never have contact with his child again.

It was suggested to her the new Cafcass policy was that there should be a starting point of no contact if a parent was in prison or had committed violent or sexual offences, she said she was aware of the recent authorities, she was not saying every man who has committed a serious offence should have contact, but there are men in prison who have been convicted of certain offences, not necessarily sexual offences, who do have contact and it is positive for the child and family. Equally there are some instances where contact should not happen. She was aware of the case that had led to Cafcass changing its approach, it was very extreme. She said her approach is you have to look at this man and can you say he should never have contact again.

It was suggested because she deals with serious cases where there are convictions and incarcerations she has minimised the domestic abuse in this case, she denied that and said she works at the Anna Freud Clinic, they do not have parents in that situation or with severe personality disorders, she has seen families who are very stuck due to significant conflict that move forward.

She was aware the mother had concerns about Dr Downs’ opinion, she had come to the case with an independent mind with no connections to anyone, what she had referred to from Dr Downs’ assessment was the personality testing rather than her recommendations in respect of Benji. She herself carries out psychiatric assessments and contributes to risk assessment formulations, she doesn’t just assess risk.

She said her notion of the toxic couple is one of the factors that contributes to her view that here there is a low risk, alongside the fact there are no reports of violence in his other relationships, that is what you look for, here there are no reports, his vulnerability to anger is in that situation and in the context of distance from his own family which led him to behave in a way which was really aggressive. She does say the situation is more complex, a lot of men who commit domestic abuse do so not just in one relationship but serial ones and often in other situations as well, for example if a man has an anti-social behaviour disorder he may have several relationships marked by domestic abuse, which is in some ways a reflection of his pathology. Here the situation is more complex in that both parties were vulnerable, he became frustrated, there were flashes of anger and violence which ended up causing harm, but it is not a hallmark of his everyday life.

She agreed that when the mother had told her contact was up to Benji she had asked her if that was quite a burden for a 7 year old, she was not sure if it had been suggested to her before, she had continued to tell her that she asked him what he wanted but couldn’t say it was a good idea for him to meet his dad. It was a new idea; she didn’t know if she was able to take it away and think about it later.

In relation to the therapist’s idea of a break for a year she said it was not for her to approve, but she had never had it suggested in any case she had done before, in her view it would be game over by reinforcing the status quo, you would need to speak to a child expert but she had been surprised as she had not come across it before. The order of 21 September 2023, she had understood she was being asked to report on the therapy and comment if she thought the approach was appropriate. The therapist’s report, including the opinion on Dr Downs was not expected, she doesn’t think she made a comment about it in her report but she was slightly surprised to see it. She felt concerned when she had a conversation with the parenting coach, she was basically saying there was more violence than the findings, in particular throttling, she herself had said to her it had not been found, but the therapist was of the view it had happened and more had happened than the mother had been able to disclose. She said she was slightly concerned as to her allegiance with the mother. It was not for her to say there was a fault line in their approach, but she had noted her concerns.

She agreed any allegations as to the paternal grandparents’ behaviour was a matter for the court as she had not met them. She was aware the mother had proposed Benji should have contact with them, she had noted the references in Dr Downs’ report to Benji’s positive reaction to the photographs of his grandparents and she remembered in the Professionals Meeting in July 2023 the contact centre also noted Benji’s response to his grandparents and that it should be explored. She said her memory of the discussion in the meeting was not the grandparents shouldn’t be joined due to any risk they posed but just not at that stage.

She was asked about the mother’s proposals, namely an introductory session with her Benji and the Guardian and then four video contacts with the paternal grandparents and then contact in a public place which she would facilitate, she said the mother does find it very difficult to fathom contact. She said it would be very hard for the mother to supervise contact, very challenging, it would be interesting to see how the video contact went in the first instance. She had made a statement denying aspects of his Indian heritage, it was important she does positively support him with it. She was not child trained so had no comment if the psychologist felt the physical meeting should take place more quickly to reduce anxiety.

She did say that the mother was unrealistic in keeping her negative feelings from Benji, this was likely to have extended to the paternal family generally. The sense from her was that the only family that mattered was hers, that was the only one that was important, and the other family was negative.

The parental relationship was complicated by many factors, there was no one cause, an array of factors led to difficulties in the relationship, the way the relationship started, he was engaged, she was married with two children, it never reached stability and was further complicated by Lockdown and Leah moving to live with them. She agreed that in this case there has been a tendency for the adults to conflate past historical issues with what is best for Benji in the future, to have successful contact they will need to move on from the past issues, whilst they can’t just abandon them, they are baggage, but manageable baggage in her view.

Dr Van Velsen is a very experienced Consultant Psychiatrist, she has a very impressive resume, has done research into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has completed hundreds of reports for the family court. I found her to be a very impressive witness, who in my judgement was straightforward, full of common sense and who brought some much-needed perspective to the case.

She was criticised on behalf of the mother, who was Lead in her joint instruction, that she had indicated in her report, and confirmed in her live evidence, she did not know what PD12J was and hadn’t taken it into account. I am clear, both from her written reports and from listening to her, she was more than aware of the issues of domestic abuse, the schedule of concessions and all the matters she was being asked to address, and that her assessment was comprehensive and insightful.

It was also suggested on behalf of the mother that she was looking at the case from the elevated perspective of those who had convictions or were incarcerated, which caused her to downplay the risks here. I reject that entirely, she was very clear that she does a lot of work at the Anna Freud Clinic, which does not have such clientele, but in any event I consider her range of experiences puts her in a unique position to assess risk and to assist the court.

It was evident she had a very clear understanding of personalities and vulnerabilities of the parents and the dynamic this had created when they got together, and I was very interested in her notion of the toxic couple which seemed to me to ring absolutely true in the context of this case. She was immediately able to shut down areas of concern by explaining matters from that perspective, namely they were ‘both so sensitised toeach other anything could be destabilising’ and it was ‘the character of the couple that both feel they are victims.’

It was evident she found the approach of the mother very difficult to countenance and made clear that a blanket approach that because a father has committed an offence he should not have contact made no sense and was very clear ‘from a psychiatric forensic point of view there were not the characteristics here to say he should never have contact again.’ It was clear she could not understand why contact was not happening and indeed expressed the view any frustrations exhibited in the Our Family Wizard exchanges were because it had gone on so long and wouldn’t have happened if contact had started 2 or 3 years ago.

Despite being accused of minimising the domestic violence, she refused to allow the case to be blown out of proportion, and was very clear when looking at risk, the court needed to ask itself ‘risk of what to whom?’ When told it was the risk to the mother as a victim of domestic abuse, she said they hadn’t been in a relationship for years, the risk was if they reunited or he went to the home and that had never happened. She was equally clear, when it was suggested that contact should not happen as the mother was frightened, that if one went by that any parent could say that and no child would ever have contact. I found her evidence both very refreshing and extremely helpful to the court.

The father filed statements dated 1 September 2021, dated 27 October 2021, dated 3 October 2022, dated 6 January 2023, dated 14 July 2023, dated 14 June 2024 and dated 4 September 2024.

He told the court he was in the process of completing on a new build property, he has exchanged and it should be ready by the end of the month according to the builder. It is a 4 bedroomed 2.5 bathroom property, it has enough space for him and Benji and for his parents to visit, it is 20 minutes away from their home.

He made his application because Benji is his son, it is in his best interests to have meaningful a relationship with both his parents, he is dual heritage which his mother has recently denied. He was born and grew up here, he understands the difficulty in navigating components of yourself. He read Benji’s comments of the Guardian’s final analysis, he had been saddened by them but equally very concerned. He felt it was very odd language for a 9 year old to use, he could understand him saying ‘you are not listening to me’ but not ‘I have a voice’ that was not in his view 9 year old speak.

His application for residence had always been an option of last resort, he had never wanted to cause him upheaval he just wanted him to have meaningful contact with both of them. However considering the continual resistance it may be the only option, he was not actively seeking to traumatise him, if the court had a better option to get contact going he will embrace it, however they are 4.5 years down the line and no further forward. He last attended therapy yesterday, he goes between once a week and once a month depending on how he feels and scheduling, he has been seeing the same therapist since January 2021.

In terms of the Schedule of Findings and Concessions he did not deny anything he conceded, therapy had allowed him to become more reflective and understand his triggers, if he feels he is getting agitated he can step back and disengage. It has given him a lot of insight, he is a passionate individual with a strong sense of belief in a lot of things, it has given him a better understanding of who he is, the things he has done and how to approach them in the future. He apologised via the impact statement, he had not spoken to the mother directly as it has not been something she has been interested in. He apologises, he is genuinely sorry, it was not a situation they should have got into. There had been a lot of re-hashing in the proceedings as to what had happened without the focus being on Benji and his best interests.

He had been concerned as to the number of agencies and experts involved with Benji, there had only been one single narrative, he had never been involved nor invited to share any alternative narrative. Action for Children had involved untrue events before Benji was even born, they have just ushered him farther away from him, he raised his concerns as did the Guardian but the mother unilaterally continued, including with CAMHS, and he didn’t feel it was always balanced work, it was an incomplete picture. Benji’s comments in the Guardian’s report show he has become further entrenched in his opinion of him, he has never been given the opportunity to grow new experiences of him and his family, it is binary his father is bad, and his mother is good.

He had been very concerned by the mother’s Re W application. The proceedings have been very difficult for the adults, it has impacted both of their mental health, hence why he has continued with the therapy to stay resilient. He felt to put a child in that space was unconscionable, at the same time she had talked about the impact on him and flagged up that he had had two panic attacks and other pressures. He had vehemently disagreed with that application, it was not child focused, not in his best interests and was not looking to the future. The focus has been on what has happened not what can happen.

He heard what Dr Van Velsen just said, namely the only family that matters is the mother’s family, in a strange way it was a relief as it was the sense he had, it was validation that it was not just him sensing it, what has been said about him using the proceedings to perpetuate abuse was not the case. Charlie was her first husband, they had an affair, she told him that Charlie had himself had two affairs early on in their marriage one when she was pregnant with Leah in 2003. Their affair happened in 2011-2012 in Ireland, initially when it went public Charlie moved out and she and the children stayed in the home, after 3-6 months he said if the children didn’t reside with him he would walk away, she didn’t want to stop them seeing their dad so she moved in with him and saw them alternate weekends, Leah was 9 and Jake was 3. This was the situation until they left Ireland in 2016 so for 4 years. They married on 5 November 2014. They moved to the UK and Leah moved over during the summer and was enrolled in school.

There were lots of difficulties when they first got together, he was engaged, she was married, she left her husband and later her children, it was not conducive to a long-term relationship, but that is with 20/20 hindsight at the time he believed he was in love with her and he wanted to do anything to make it work and so did she. After they separated, she moved to Norfolk. They maintained video contact for 30 days. She then said Benji needed a break and she cut contact, he spent 6 weeks trying to re-establish contact, she blocked his number and it was in the middle of lockdown. At some point between her moving back to Norfolk and November 2022 she reconciled with Charlie and he and Jake moved to live with her. Charlie viewed his profile on LinkedIn, so he blocked him. When he and the mother were together he assisted with her contact, there was no limitation on her seeing the children but the mother resented Charlie for the fact the children lived with him, when it was time for them to leave she wouldn’t go to the door so he would take the suitcases and load the car, he would nod and smile with Charlie, there was not a lot of contact but he would facilitate the handovers. Charlie would have to be asked as to why he has spent his entire pension on the proceedings, it plays into the narrative it’s them and us, our team and the opposition. He has never wanted the proceedings to carry on this long, all the applications to stall or delay the proceedings have come from her side and therefore he must be a willing participant. He and Charlie only interacted when handing over the children, they never spoke, the mother dealt with Charlie, she harboured resentment and felt he bought the children’s affection with money which she couldn’t compete with. He had made concessions involving his daughter, Charlie had made a statement for the fact-finding hearing although he and the mother’s father never attended during the hearing.

The suggestion of Honour Based Violence was introduced into work with various agencies post-separation, he never understood where it came from, it was inherently racist, it was in the Local Authority report from 2020, as far as he is aware the mother had said it or it was something said to her by an agency, it was used regularly by her during the first two years of the proceedings until the fact-finding hearing was compromised, including during the work with Benji as he was made aware he may snatch him. It would have been very traumatising for him, as it painted him as the bogeyman, someone to fear, it was also dangerous to his sense of identity as a dual heritage child, suggesting that brown people are bad. As far as the proceedings were concerned it created an elevated level of concern. Whilst he is not dismissing his domestic abuse concessions, he understands honour based violence to be domestic abuse involving two people from different cultures, it adds an element of race which is incredibly damaging but also not the reality as he was British born, he has a British passport, he has never lived outside the UK save for work and has no ties with any country not within the Hague Convention, it was all based on the colour of his skin, he barely speaks another language, whilst he may be brown on the outside he is white on the inside, he is an Indian person with a British culture, and sometimes it is difficult to know where he fits. These are difficulties Benji will also face, the way in which matters have been portrayed to him he won’t be able to reconcile his own identity which can lead to self-loathing and be so damaging. As to any suggestion the child’s heritage should be left to the mother, it would be like him trying to teach Benji about his Irish heritage, if you haven’t lived it how can you teach it. She has recently told the Guardian Benji was not mixed race, the degrees of a child’s heritage is not an argument he is here to make, he does not deny his English and Irish components, but he is British of Indian heritage therefore Benji is dual heritage, he is not here to break down his ethnic minority but both sides make the whole, neither is better or worse and they need to recognise both sides.

The concessions, will have impacted the children without a doubt, they were put in a very difficult position, they wouldn’t have understood what was happening or the context, it is not defendable and would have made them very sad and upset. The next concession, Benji was not born at that time, Leah and Jake would have been frightened, he put that into his impact statement, it would have been very frightening for the mother, she would have felt trapped and fearful. When he pushed her onto the lamp it was physical abuse, she would have been frightened, emotionally confused, and upset as the person she was in a relationship with whom she loved, she would not have expected that individual to behave like that, it would have impacted her self-esteem. The concession at iii she was feeding Benji he was in his highchair, he hit her, and she would have been upset, Benji was 6 months old that is not an excuse just the context, he would have found it upsetting and frightening and would not understand, Benji was a victim of domestic abuse, he has accepted that. He did twist her arm, he cannot now remember the length of time the swelling existed or the amount of the bruising. He feels ashamed by his behaviour and has never sought to defend it, he compromised the fact-finding to try and be child focused to remove the focus from the adults onto what was best for Benji. Both of them made multiple allegations and cross allegations, he will not revisit them and relies on the concessions document. They were having an argument, he can’t recall what over, she had hit him, and he reacted by grabbing her arm and twisting it, there are no findings against her as he compromised the fact-finding to focus on Benji. He has not challenged the fact there are no findings against her, but he can’t answer the question without giving context. He was not minimising his behaviour or deflecting it by suggesting she provoked him, he was just answering the question, he accepts regardless of the circumstances he twisted her arm causing bruising and swelling. No expert has said she was violent as they compromised the fact-finding. He did say to Dr Downs and Dr Van Velsen she was controlling and was physically abusive, but that was in the context of the assessment, he explained those were allegations he had made but also those were the concessions he made. He has not tried to undermine the concessions by trying to blame her. He did put her in a restraint, she headbutted him and he said I should kill you. It was not a threat, it was in the heat of the moment and should not have been said. It could be interpreted in many different ways but the way he stated it was in the context of the aftermath of a headbutt, there was no thought desire or intent to follow through with it. He immediately let go and left the room. He was not trying to explain his behaviour, or justifying it, he committed physical abuse on her 5 times alongside verbal abuse and the other concessions he made. He agreed he had said things to Leah when she was 16 that had a profound effect on her, he had read her statement and made admissions in his own impact statement. He carried out emotionally abusive behaviour.

He said his original schedule and statement for the expanded Scott schedule marked the points he was willing to concede prior to the fact-finding hearing. He had sought findings against the mother but the purpose of the proceedings was Benji and he had not been interested in prolonging the battle, he never lost sight of it, he didn’t change his position, the mother did. It was not a case of him taking months to withdraw his allegations, she had had no interest in compromising, she had wanted the Fact-Finding hearing, the overtures came from her side which is why her counsel drafted the document. He knew he was a flawed individual but genuinely believed his son should have a meaningful relationship with both parents. He agreed the domestic abuse had covered several years of Benji’s life, the formative pre-school years, and whilst he disagreed with the term ‘consistent pattern’ he accepted it would have had an impact on him. There were times Benji shouted at them both and would mimic both of their behaviour, shouting and yelling, they both argued in front of the children. He couldn’t recall him pushing or pinching. It was emotionally harmful. He does have a plate in his hand where he punched a wall at university, he had had an argument with a female friend, he had been drinking and it was very late at night he was 20. Police were called in 2016, 2017 and 2020. There was no incident in 2016 where he hit his sister, they had an argument, there was shouting but he didn’t hit her over the head or put his hands around her throat. The allegation in 2016 was that he pushed a pram into the wall the police came but he hadn’t done anything, and he wasn’t charged. Benji would have been confused, he would have understood his parents were arguing. Leah was present in 2017 and 2020, she would have been confused upset and frightened.

He did not agree with the assertion she fled their home as she left 3 to 4 weeks after he had been asked to leave, he was on bail it was lockdown. They had a fight he was arrested and was subsequently acquitted on the basis of self-defence. She would have felt a combination of emotions at that time; fear sadness grief relief, they were broken. He doesn’t deny anything she says she felt around that time. She left 4 weeks later, he imagines the word fleeing to be more immediate. He was acutely aware of the impact of his behaviour on her and the children and had accepted it at every opportunity. There is nothing to justify his behaviour. He was aware it was said Benji wouldn’t go into his room on his own or the toilet, he cannot validate those things as he had no access to his son, all he can say is on the phone calls he was happy and engaged. Whilst the domestic abuse was undoubtedly a factor in his behaviour, he also had a lot of changes in his circumstances at the time. He can’t say if it was all down to the domestic abuse he conceded or other factors, he is not challenging he was scared by the domestic abuse.

He agreed he had looked at the mother’s LinkedIn profile on 14 December 2020 using his own profile. He had looked at her profile the day after his birthday, they were not divorced, part of him was still hoping they would reconcile, he had been drinking and was on his own, it was a moment of weakness which he has never done again, he was still going through the process of grieving the relationship. If she felt alarmed he doesn’t deny that, he was not thinking about it, it was freely accessible in the public domain. He uploaded photos to his own google drive in December 2020 between Christmas and New Year when he was on leave from work to free up space on his own PC to install a computer game. He didn’t realise she had access until 17 January 2021 when the Police alerted him, at which point he changed the permissions and removed her. He was not harassing her.

He said he was concerned from what he had read about Benji’s behaviour and both Dr Downs and Dr Van Velsen had highlighted it. He was a perpetrator of domestic abuse and they are the victims. It was not appropriate to introduce a biased narrative into his life story work and events that had happened before his birth, he would have been able to engage via his solicitor, the agencies involved had shown a lack of professional curiosity. He accepted what he had done but does not accept the biased narrative, Dr Downs said it was causing him significant harm and Dr Van Velsen was clear she did not see the paternal family as important as hers. He said he accepted Benji had memories of domestic abuse, but what they are he doesn’t know, if you went by the concessions, she conceded the incident of him banging his hands on the car didn’t happen, and yet he has memories of it. He agreed he would have memories of him shouting and may have memories of how he felt at the time, he challenges what is behind them, if incidents have been told to him that did not happen, he still feels they are his truth. He is aware the Action for Children work referred to an incident that happened before he was born, the mother wrote it and they read it to him, ‘Daddy did not want you he wanted to spend time with his friends, mummy wanted you’. He would have memories of his parents shouting, he doesn’t know if he would remember him calling her a bitch and shouting at Leah.

He does not deny shouting and swearing, he didn’t throw things, it was unfair he witnessed shouting, they had a toxic relationship and didn’t protect the children. He said Benji had not been given the opportunity to form new memories, feelings and emotions with him. When the relationship ended it was in a very traumatic way, it would have had an impact on him. He has had the opportunity to build a relationship with his new family but that had been denied to him in respect to the paternal family to address his fears and concerns. Benji’s drawings which he was unable to date are reflective of how he may have initially felt and in his opinion encouraged to feel.

He denied trying to rewrite history, he wanted him to have the opportunity to forge new memories, and have positive experiences with both his parents independently, love is not finite, he has much to give but has been given no opportunity. The photographs showed a positive relationship as well as a negative one, he is not saying he didn’t draw the pictures, rather he has not been given an opportunity to replace the final memories and the incident when he left with positive ones. It is not about forgetting the past rather seeing a new one, people constantly evolve, he doesn’t deny being a perpetrator of domestic abuse, he has spent four years in therapy trying to be a better father to his son.

He doesn’t deny the drawing of daddy as an aggressive figure, the last 6 months were very regrettable, he witnessed it, he has always felt shame and regret as to what he put his son through and Leah and Jake due to the relationship he had with the mother. He was not the perfect father he wanted to be. He accepted that via the concessions and has not wavered from that. There will always be a sense of shame and regret he has been in proceedings for 4 years, that was not the entirety of the relationship he had with Benji, some are his lived experiences with other bits added, some of the images are in the mother’s writing, he has not had the opportunity to experience anything else, he has seen the mother outside the confines of their relationship but has not had the opportunity to see him. She acknowledged she engaged in arguments. The incident in April 2020 he was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence, that was the Magistrates ruling, Benji would have understood his parents were arguing and he was shouting but he wouldn’t have understood what it was about. He accepts he has experienced his father differently from his mother over the last 4 years. Cafcass do raise concerns about the matter-of-fact way he spoke of the incident it was not normalised, the incident wasn’t pursued by the mother at the fact-finding and it did not happen in the way it was portrayed so the way he portrays it is worrying. He presents himself as someone who has conceded domestic abuse and being in a toxic relationship not as a victim. She does have control over his relationship with his son who he hasn’t seen for 1065 days. He denied being angry with her, he was frustrated, all he has wanted in the last 4.5 years is to have a relationship with his son that doesn’t impact the relationship he has with his mother, Charlie and siblings. The mother, through her pattern of behaviour has prevented that happening, she refused to allow birthday presents until 2023, what child wouldn’t wonder if their parent loved them if they had no cards and presents, no wonder he rejects them. He is not bitter, his only focus is on what he can do going forward. She is the one in control after he sent his statement on 3 September 2024 she said she was no longer sending updates via Our Family Wizard. He denied seeing Benji as an object to control, he said he was his son, a little boy who he wants to see happy living a full life where both parents have input. He denied feeling he was the victim, he said it was fact that he had not been able to exercise parental responsibility to see how his son is, he has to wait for the mother to give him school reports, he doesn’t know who his friends are, if one has all the information it will create a power imbalance, he wants meaningful information so when he sees him he will be able to engage with him. He disagrees with the characterisation that it is about power and control it is about responsibility he wants to exercise responsibility but she refuses and that creates a power imbalance. He doesn’t know how he can show responsibility when he has no opportunity to do so. He is not willingly ignoring him, he is desperate to have responsibility, to engage with his school, support him, provide him with new experiences, take him on holiday, he would not say that is being naïve he would say hopeful.

He disagreed that he was controlling the mother by way of the court proceedings, since he made his initial application the only other one was the lives with application, every other application has come from the mother, he doesn’t know how he is said to be perpetuating the proceedings. His only focus is for Benji to have meaningful contact with both parents and live his life as a child in knowledge of the full breadth of his identity. In the context of allegation 7 he is unsure why Benji doesn’t have a good relationship with the rest of the paternal family, removing him from the equation, he had a good relationship with the paternal grandparents, according to Dr Downs his parents have been triangulated into it.

He accepts the experts’ reports including what Dr Downs said about not having a relationship with the paternal family causes significant harm. He is not saying he is not doing well at school, or his physical needs are not being met, but he has to be led by the experts, if the expert said no harm he would not challenge the report. Benji deems one side bad and the other good it is a very dangerous proposition.

When asked about the link between the impact of the domestic abuse on the mother and promoting contact, he had acknowledged the impact of his behaviour in his impact statement but he has also seen the pattern of her behaviour over the last four years, it was not proportionate, by way of example subjecting him to a Re W application, there is an incongruence with her behaviour saying she is looking out for Benji’s best interests yet subjecting him to a traumatic experience, it is disingenuous. He is not saying it will not be difficult; it is possible, she has not sought support or therapy that might help her, she says she is unable to afford therapy due to the legal costs.

It was suggested there were only 3 or 4 calls, once a week post separation between him and Benji, he said the calls were daily, sometime more than daily as Benji asked to call him once when he was in a work meeting. He spoke to his son daily for the month following separation. He said he didn’t know of the conversation between the mother and his mother and she had asked his mother not to record him. He didn’t think it was inappropriate for a grandparent to take pictures of their grandchild, the mother wasn’t on the screen Benji was with him and the grandparents, the mother was trying to control the situation. He said his parents were very respectful of boundaries, she would tell them they couldn’t arrive until after 5pm and had to leave by a certain time on Sunday, she gave them very clear timelines to adhere to.

It was suggested there was one call after the move to Norfolk, he said there were two calls. He denied asking the child where he was living, she had told him she was moving, he asked him if he had a nice house, a nice garden and was he having fun, not where he lived. He was aware of his bail conditions, he wanted loving conversations with his son and to minimise the experience for him and try to make it positive, he was happy and excited about his garden, It was the same conversation you would have with a niece or nephew if they had moved to a new house, he was not asking the address or how close it was to nanny’s house or his school. He had enquired via his mother, given they were in Lockdown and schools were closed, about the opportunity to have him for the week which was allowed under the Lockdown conditions but the mother was not responsive. They had said would you like to come and see Daddima and Granddad’s home. He was discursive engaging and happy on the calls, they had a positive relationship and he loved him deeply.

In the supervised contact he started to cry whilst he was in there, when he entered, he was calm and was talking to him calmly and was engaging, then he started saying that he didn’t want to see him anymore, subsequently he showed distress. The whole situation was distressing after he used the tissue he was making dragon puppets on the floor; he was not showing fear. He was acutely aware of when he was showing distress, he acknowledges what he experiences is his truth but feels unfortunately he has been influenced to feel the way he does. He has not been emboldened by what Dr Downs and Dr Van Velsen said but rather validated, he feels hopeful of trying to build a relationship with his son, but appreciates he has been accused of naivety.

In respect to the Our Family Wizard communications it was the first information he had had in 3 years, he was very positive about it, he was a man in the desert trying to make do with a thimble of water, he was desperate for information to build a relationship with his son. He had not been sent school reports for the first two years. The framework was the first 4 weeks he was to just acknowledge the information and subsequently he could respond. He engaged in what he thought was the spirit of the family therapy, namely looking to the future and re-establishing contact, to help him understand the work to be done and extent of the rebuilding. He denied he was confrontational or aggressive he was asked to send questions as part of the framework, he engaged with his legal team to ensure care with tone. He denied he was evidence gathering. When he asked for pictures of Benji’s face and not his back it was not a criticism just a request as he had not seen him for 4 years and he missed him every day. He found out from the pictures he wears glasses as he hadn’t been told of any medical conditions. He thanked her for sending them but asked could they be of his face. He did ask who the other person was, the framework was not to be deliberately inflammatory, she sent pictures of Benji with his stepdad and the therapist spoke to her about it. He denied he was combative, he suffered anxiety over the communications as he was worried to say or do the wrong thing, he tried to be matter of fact so there was less opportunity for misinterpretation and tried to soften the messages. He asked for names of Benji’s friends for the purpose of trying to build a relationship with Benji, he could say mummy told me you do x with x or you have been to x’s party and did paintballing, he was not asking for full names and address, Benji engages with them, it was about building a mental map not evidence gathering, at the time it had been taken out of court, he was trying to get into a situation whereby if he was ever in a room with Benji he could engage with him. In relation to another message he was asking about what she was doing in relation to Diwali and birthday presents as he was not having contact, if he was he could show he was not a person of fear, therapy was to build to positive contact outside the court environment, narrative work needed to be done, he couldn’t do it so the onus was on her. In relation to the mother’s message she did give two names but he has lots of friends, he has friends he sees different days of the week, he does different activities with each they don’t always mix, he was trying to build a picture and understand the important people in his life and their context. He denied being combative or relentless, just a father trying to get information about his son. He agreed that in a message he asked to be called his full name, the mother had asked him not to refer to her as her nickname and he did, to ask the same is not inappropriate it is balanced, to not say ‘As updated’ ‘Here is information’ asking someone to address you by name is just courtesy. In relation to a further message this was not evidence gathering. He denied by asking more about friends he was failing to respect boundaries or seeking to control the information, he said he would find it very difficult to control the information someone else gives to him. In relation to a further exchange he was not using it as a weapon, she feels he should be grateful with the little he receives, he would like more it was difficult for them both. Some of her communications were detailed others were vague and generic. He denied he never said anything positive, he received the information second hand all he wants is to see him, he was incredibly proud of him when he got his award, he wanted to express it to him, he can’t show it through a third party. He did express concern about his panic attacks and why he was not informed, he got it two weeks after, he gets third party information, she could have notified him via the app, he got it via a solicitors letter two weeks after, how could he respond to his wellbeing two weeks after, the timeline affects how he can express his concern, had he had the attack that morning it would have been phrased differently. He denied he had expressed concerns re his school report rather the positives, he said he would have expressed positives to Benji, in last year’s report his reading was exceptional and he was in the Gladiators group, he was trying to understand what had happened in the intervening year, he was very proud of him, if he was seeing him he would know he was not interested in reading so much and what he enjoys, he was not critical of Benji, he was looking at it as a parent and areas that needed to be focused on, ie should he do more reading and have less screen time in the evenings. He said he felt the confrontational approach from the proceedings had been taken into the OFW communications, he denied he had power or control as she was the resident parent. He asked about riots and unrest as he was concerned previously he was bullied at school and he was not told about it, he was concerned about his welfare as he is dual heritage. He denied using it as a weapon, he is dual heritage, as a boy growing up he faced racism and dealt with it, he thinks British but is judged by the colour of his skin, Benji is dual heritage and may face issues, it is documented children of colour are adultified earlier. She sent a message on 6 September 2024 saying she was taking legal advice since then there has been one update on 20 September 2024. He agreed it was unfortunate the therapy was not productive, as Dr Van Velsen said the therapist had aligned with the mother.

He denied using the allegation of parental alienation to frighten control and torment her, he doesn’t deny the domestic abuse is an element of the reason for Benji’s rejection, without her behaviour he would have been able to repair the relationship.

He agreed he was engaged when they met, she was not separated, she was living with Charlie and the children, Charlie initially moved out, he said he would leave the children, she moved in with him June 2012. They engaged in an affair in 2011 and early 2012 and their other romantic partners were unaware. His family was not happy, it would be very difficult for anyone to say they behaved in a morally positive manner, he left his family to deal with it, he abandoned his partner and got on with his life in Ireland. They didn’t know the mother and didn’t approve of the circumstances in which they got together. He doesn’t blame them with the benefit of hindsight. The mother did ask his mother to go wedding dress shopping but she said no as she didn’t approve. His father was not screaming down the phone the day before the wedding.

His family’s attitude was a factor in their ability to enjoy a relationship, but on reflection they had an affair, he broke off his relationship, abandoned his family and lived his life free from consequence in Ireland, her separation and divorce from Charlie also played a part, they did not go into their relationship clean. He was happy with the mother, in love with her, infatuated by her, he has gained wisdom in the years since, he can’t ignore the fact his family were left to deal with the consequences of his actions and felt angered. He did receive a solicitor’s letter from his father about paying back a loan, but equally he supported him regardless of mistakes, he showed his unhappiness at his behaviour, but he was not hostile to the mother. It was a very emotional period, there were opportunities missed on all sides, he tried to get everyone around the table, his parents were resistant, then they reached out and then the mother was not agreeable, whatever he did someone was not interested, his sister felt they were forging ahead not taking the family into account, the mother felt he was only interested in his family’s view and not her feelings, he was trying to forge ahead and he failed. They didn’t approve of the fact he didn’t bring her home and introduce her as his bride to be, she would have been their oldest daughter which carries a lot of respect, he denied distancing himself from what he had said to Dr Downs, his parents didn’t approve of how they got together and then he didn’t come home, they reached out he was in a situation of push and pull as she did not want to engage, it was a scenario of missed opportunities.

He denied they did not approve of her because she was white and not Hindu, they were not religious more spiritual so religion was irrelevant, her being white was not a factor, they were concerned they had an affair which broke up her marriage, they struggled to reconcile matters on a moral basis. She did want an Indian wedding, he didn’t deny she embraced parts of his culture when they were together, she wore clothes provided by his mother, they celebrated Diwali and he celebrated Christmas, however he wanted to explore further aspects of his culture and was told no. The mother didn’t want his sisters to attend the wedding, they had not met, she refused to meet them before, she wanted to put it off for a year he had said no, he was put in a position that his parents could come but not his sisters, it was not tenable to ask his parents to choose between him and his sisters, so his family didn’t attend as a result of the circumstances.

His sister said she was not comfortable meeting his stepchildren as she had only met the mother 2 or 3 times and this was a new dynamic, Leah and Jake were not aware, he told his family this was not the right decision, he was forced to choose, and he sided with his wife. It was a horrible situation. There was a period of about 18 months which they missed out on and he supported his wife. He worked with both to mend the relationship. It is inappropriate and racist to say his sister looked down on the mother because she was white and not Hindu, she worked with and had friends who were white, Irish, mixed race, she didn’t choose his relationship, they moved at different paces she was not comfortable at that point, his sister’s friends have step-children she is known as Aunty. After matters had been resolved the paternal grandparents visited ever 6 weeks or so, the mother did not want more, they visited on average monthly or two monthly from April/May 2017 to separation, they last visited in January 2020.

He did not disagree with Dr Downs that individuals from ethnic minorities cannot be mediocre, it installs discipline, his parents gave him every opportunity to achieve, private school, university, they wanted him to succeed and be able to provide for his family. His parents are very different, his dad is softly spoken and introverted, his mother is outgoing and expressive, sometimes she felt she had to do the speaking, they have worked through their different characteristics, they have their own quirks.

He said he deferred to Dr Downs in terms of his psychological traits, he agreed when dealing with institutionalised or explicit racism you have to believe in yourself. He agreed he had had issues with anger management which is why he has had 4 years of therapy. He has had passionate relationships, he had a relationship when he was young at university that he would now describe as intense and co-dependant, maybe that is volatile. He was not struggling with managing his anger in the Our Family Wizard messages, he was over curating messages to try and not cause offence, he was trying to get necessary information about his son. He denied his behaviour was learned behaviour from his family and said every family has blow-ups on occasions, this process taught his family how to talk more effectively, they don’t have blow-ups now, they have just had his sister’s wedding with 400 guests over 1.5 weeks and functioned in unison under pressure.

In therapy they have explored a variety of things, he has seen her fortnightly or weekly in the last year, they have talked about the violence and the concessions, he has not shared the findings or Dr Van Velsen’s report but told her about them as he doesn’t know what he can and can’t disclose. His therapist has worked on the information he told her.

His parents did not call the mother a ‘white whore’ or referred to Leah and Jake as ‘bastard children’, they directed their language to him, they called him an arsehole, bastard, selfish and ungrateful. They didn’t use derogatory language towards her, they didn’t approve or want to know her, it carried on for 12 months and then his parents reached out, his father came to Ireland to meet her but she wouldn’t. It is untrue that Benji heard the paternal grandparents being abusive to the mother, the photographic evidence shows they had a loving relationship, they never fought when his parents were there.

He does not deny a change of residence would impact Benji, however the short-term impact would be outweighed by the long term benefits. Benji would be upset and distressed, he did not make the application lightly however now he feels there is no alternative. He denied it was a threat to compel her to ensure contact happened it was the desperate act of a desperate father. In January 2023, he made it clear he would move to minimise the impact, in the last 18 months he has started a new relationship and bought a house in the local area. He has been in a relationship for 14 months, he kept it separate so it was not used as a weapon, she is disappointed she can’t be here today, but the relationship is not component in his ability to care for his son. They don’t cohabit although that may change. He has discussed his new partner in depth with the Guardian, this application is about his son, he was only informed Charlie had moved into the home via the disclosure for Dr Van Velsen.

He denied using the suggestion of family therapy as a threat, alongside his application for a change of residence or otherwise. They had been due to start therapy with another therapist in August 2022, she had said she was open to it and then reneged on it at the 11th hour, by December 2022 he had no alternative but to consider making a lives with application. If it was a threat he would have made it as part of his original application, however he got to 23 December 2022 with no response and needed to submit his statement by 6 January 2023, on that basis he proceeded. Dr Downs did say she didn’t envisage it to be in the mix, he didn’t want it in the mix, if he could establish meaningful contact why would he want to rip him away, he didn’t want to punish the mother but at the current time sees little option given the mother’s resistance. It is not a case of punishing her or winning, Benji is not a prize. He doesn’t feel angry or hostile towards her and would not in these circumstances alienate Benji from his mother or the maternal family, he wouldn’t stop contact, initially supervision may be necessary but he would never prevent him seeing his family, it’s not a case of one family over the other, love is not finite, he can have two families.

He said Benji had an excellent relationship with the paternal grandparents. He heard what Dr Downs said about his reaction to their photos, his facial expressions and demeanour and it all rang true. He disagreed with the mother’s statement there had not been a meaningful relationship, they would come to stay 6 times a year or more and spend 3 to 4 days at the weekend. The last time was January 2020 when they babysat whilst he took the mother away for the weekend for her birthday, there were photos and videos showing this. He would wake at 6-7am, his parents would be staying in Leah’s room, Benji would wake his father and want to start playing before his nap at 9am. They had a very good relationship, he would become upset when they left so they tied it to his bedtime. They would stay Friday to Sunday depending on other factors. The visits would be arranged by him and the mother, he couldn’t recall them ever turning up uninvited. They would babysit Benji without them there, at least four times since 2017 he can recall, last time in 2020. He took her to Essex for 3 days, Benji was 4.5 years. He had a complex relationship with Leah at times, his mum had a very good relationship, his dad is more introverted and his mum is very outgoing. She got Leah gifts at Diwali Christmas and on Birthdays, matching pyjamas one year, the maternal grandmother never babysit she would visit every 6 to 12 months.

They never used the language alleged by the mother ‘white whore’ and ‘bastard children’ to him. He had never heard them comment on the colour of her skin or be racist. When she became pregnant he felt it important his parents were involved, there was still a lot of tension, he didn’t want his child exposed to it, he needed to draw a line under it. His parents flew over the day after he was born, he didn’t drive at the time and they lived 45 minutes from the hospital, he was one month premature so spent time in NICU, they drove him to and from the hospital they got food in and looked after everything so he could spend his time with the mother and Benji. They drove them all home from the hospital and spent two weeks there. His mum was still working at that point, she went home and returned during that time. She didn’t have an issue with his parents helping them. Her parents didn’t come for 8 weeks. They had no support network, so it was a happy time. Benji had never been to his parents’ home, she didn’t want him to go by himself and said if he did he could stay there, she wanted him to show loyalty to her and she refused to let him take Benji or visit herself. He wanted to go with her and the children but because she refused, he couldn’t take Benji. The allegation of snatching arose as she said in the Fact-Finding he was going to take him back to his parents’ home.

He was under no illusions what a huge impact a change of residence would be, Benji has wholescale rejected him, he has been fed the narrative that daddy is going to come and take him and a change of residence would be that fear manifesting. It would be incredibly distressing, it would be upheaval from all he knows, his friends, family, school it would be incredibly isolating for him and he would be with people he deems to be bad. It is not an application he has made lightly. He is fully cogent of the impact. He did say supervised contact but he was aware the court would only make that ruling if it felt there had been alienating behaviours and the impact on him, the only reason to seek residence is to rebuild his relationship, he would not want it to be subsequently undermined. He is open to an ISW, they tried supervised contact he was positive how it functioned perhaps a similar set up parallel to any necessary therapeutic work professionally supervised. It is abundantly clear they are not in a position to co-parent it wouldn’t be appropriate for him or his family to supervise, it would have to be an independent person, it would need Guardian or court oversight.

If the court was looking at contact between him and Benji he would propose it in a similar way in which they utilised supervised contact, in parallel with the necessary narrative work, or as suggested by Dr Downs, Benji goes out for the day and he goes and has a conversation and build bridges, he is prepared to be guided by the court and the Guardian, whatever is in his best interests. If only his parents had contact it would be bittersweet but at the end of the day any contact with the paternal family is more important than himself in the equation, he would have no difficulty in adhering to court orders, he would hope it would blossom into him having contact. He would adhere to any parameters the court put in place, part of the reason he is buying his house is if the court made that determination he could be away, his partner has her own property so he could live with her for the weekend anyway.

He doesn’t disagree the Our Family Wizard communication was difficult, he would welcome assistance from anyone, Dr Van Velsen said they were both highly sensitised to each other and perceive things that may not be there. He would love them to be able to communicate effectively if his therapist could assist that would be great.

In relation to the supervised contact on 2 April 2022, he was not crying when he came in, Benji was already in the room, he had been told the layout in advance and was told to come in and sit at the table. He cried after he told him he didn’t want to see him anymore. It is difficult to read anything into that. He talked about his height after only a couple of tears he stopped. He wiped his eyes, he had a tissue in his hand and made a dragon shadow on the floor, he asked him to stand up as it was hard to gauge his height, he was trying to say he was glad he was happy he wants him to be happy, love is not a finite resource, he wants him to have a good relationship with his family, days out, holidays, all he does with the maternal family but in duplicate. He was not traumatised he was confident; he was reluctant to say goodbye despite being asked twice. He remembers it very clearly, he only saw him for 15 minutes, it was like he was on a 5-minute reset, he came in said he didn’t want to see him anymore, they talked about the shadow, he was starting to engage, it was like his brain had hit a timer and did not support him engaging, the ‘I don’t want to see you anymore’ happened three times, then the contact centre stopped it.

The calls at separation April 2020 the mother said to his mother the calls could be daily. There was a good relationship between the mother and his mum, his parents made it clear they wanted to give her support, she didn’t need to worry about finances. They were positive, they were speaking to Benji daily, the calls were the highlight of his day. When they moved it was what’s your room like, what’s the garden like, he was happy Benji was happy, it was very early on lockdown, they were not sure how long it would go on for, the nurseries were closed, she had just moved, they wanted to see him and asked if they could have him for the week, 2 days later contact stopped. He wondered subsequently if it was because they asked for physical contact. She said he was showing signs of anxiety and acting up and didn’t want to speak to them but there no signs of it on the call. He has no idea of her living circumstances and found out she had moved in her ex in November 2022 in the disclosure ahead of Dr Van Velsen’s report, he was at a friend’s wedding in Ireland at the time.

The supervised contact ended in May 2022, the next recommendation was for family therapy, a therapist was recommended, she was engaged and he paid for her services to start in August 2022, he had his first session the first week in August, the mother was due to have her first session that Friday, her admin were told on the Thursday she was not attending. His solicitor emailed her solicitor to establish what was going on, she then submitted an application for a Stay and then for Dr Van Velsen.

In the Action for Children work Benji was informed of incidents before he was born, for example the document when mummy got pregnant and daddy wanted to spend time with his friends, he was not aware at the time that Benji Leah and the mother had joint sessions and she put the narrative around them. Her position has not changed, in October 2022 she asked the Guardian if fathers ever give up, she has recently said he is not half Indian, if anything her position has got more extreme, she is trying to whitewash him and half of himself out of his life.

I found the father to be an impressive witness, having listened to him give evidence over many hours I was left in no doubt as to his love and devotion for his son. It was abundantly clear that these proceedings, and the matters he has felt the need to raise within them, are not about him, and nor are they, as suggested, motivated by a desire to ‘torment andfrighten’ the mother, but about the best interests of his son who he genuinely believes needs to have a balanced relationship with both sides of his family. I am also clear that his application for residence was made from desperation and as a last resort in circumstances where the case was going nowhere, even at this late stage he was clear if professionals or the court had a better suggestion, he would willingly take it. His overriding focus on his son’s welfare was evident at all times.

I also found him to be an essentially truthful witness, the mother’s case has always been, ‘he conceded in circumstances where he has denied these allegations since he made his application to the court for a child arrangement order in June 2020,’ and she told Dr Downs ‘all of the behaviour throughout all of the proceedings, everything was denied, until the last minute when everything was admitted,’ such a position is factually incorrect. As he stated in live evidence, what was agreed in the concessions document, in terms of his own behaviour, physical and verbal abuse, was actually what he had admitted all along, both towards the mother and the children, what he did at the Fact-Finding hearing was no longer pursue his own allegations, and he explained to the court that was a conscious decision to focus on Benji going forward. In terms of his evidence he has been, in my view, honest and consistent throughout.

He was in the witness box for many hours and was cross examined on behalf of the mother, on instructions, in a manner designed to show his flaws. Difficult matters were repeatedly put to him, alongside it being suggested, whatever his response, that he was minimising, deflecting, attempting to rewrite history, seeking to justify his behaviour and/or was case building, and yet he remained calm collected pleasant and reflective at all times, addressing every question with care and thought.

It was of specific note to me that at no time did he try to deflect, minimise or justify his behaviour, he accepted without question everything that he had conceded, he told the court he knew he was a ‘flawed individual’ and he referred to himself as a ‘perpetrator of domestic violence and they ( mother Leah and Benji) were his victims’. He was at all times repentant and apologetic.

He also showed, in my view, considerable insight into his own functioning, he was able to explain not only why he had behaved as he had, but also the effect it had had on others, variously his family in terms of his decision making at the beginning of the relationship, why the relationship was doomed to fail from the start, and the domestic abuse on the mother and the children. On more than one occasion he described the ‘shame and regret’ he has, for not only the way he has behaved, but the way they have all experienced him. I note he was saying similar things to Dr Downs as long ago as November 2021, ‘He acknowledged Benji did see things that would have been distressing for him during the last few months that they were together and he will carry that for the rest of his days’ ‘He did say to Leah which he now regrets that if she did not like it there, she could go back to Ireland. He said that looking back he could imagine how that would have made her feel and it would seem like he was rejecting her which was not his intention at all. He said he had not had the chance to apologise to her.’ He expanded on these issues when in discussions with Dr Van Velsen. I have rarely heard a witness so acutely aware, not only of their own failings, but also of the effect of those failings and consequent behavior on others. I have no doubt he has worked very hard to better himself and I can only give him credit for his commitment to therapy over nearly 4 years.

It was said on behalf of the mother that his evidence, including his last statement, was effectively a character assassination of her. I reject that. I had no sense at all from him that he was angry or bitter towards her, but rather that he was sad and frustrated with the situation their son is in. I note as long ago as his meeting with Dr Downs in November 2021 he said ‘regardless of the issues between them he could not say she did not love Benji’ and was clearly remained proud of her and described how she had ‘showcased it’ and succeeded in her career without a university education behind her.

He has been raising the issue of her unreasonable behaviour since the 22nd October 2021 when he first indicated he sought such a finding. He set out his concerns in relation to what has happened, whether it be the work of professionals such as Action for Children, whether it be the mother's behaviour, whether it be the new family unit that his son is living, or whether it be the raising of the question of Honour Based Violence in a truly balanced way, reflecting the way he had approached it with Dr Downs, ‘He said he accepts that Benji did see things that would have impacted him and was not trying to dismiss that. He said he acknowledged that Benji had said things, but he questioned whether he was also being given a balanced view of what happened including positive memories.’

I have the unique opportunity to observe parents’ behaviour and reactions, not just whilst they are giving evidence, but also throughout the hearing. The father was at all times quiet and attentive and often making notes, he was entirely focused on the proceedings and what was being said about his son. It was also of note that his instructions to counsel were clearly to put his case swiftly and in a very pleasant manner designed to cause the least upset. Those matters support my view that these proceedings are not about him, not about punishing the mother, but about achieving the best outcome for Benji.

He is undoubtedly a highly intelligent articulate man who has much to offer his son; he spoke eloquently about his own difficulties growing up and not knowing where he fitted in due to his heritage and it was evident he felt greatly saddened that, as yet, he has not been able to guide his son in the same way.

I was very interested in listening to his evidence about the parties’ relationship, much of it struck a chord with what Dr Van Velsen had said about him and the ‘notion of the toxicrelationship.’ I accept, as she said, he is a man with no mental health difficulties, no personality disorder, no history of antisocial behaviour, no history of criminality, no forensic history of offending in this manner and that his behaviour within this relationship, was due to a unique set of factors, and ‘is not a hallmark for his everyday life.’ I accept her assessment that he is a man of ‘low risk’ and he does not need to complete a DAPP, although I concur with her that going forward it would be very helpful if he continued his current therapy as it is having a very positive effect.

It was evident to me that these proceedings have not been a battle that he has ever wanted, he has been desperate for a long time for the focus to be on Benji and not the adult issues, and his only goal is for his son to have a good balanced relationship with both sides of his family, and his greatest fear is that if that doesn't happen his son’s long term future will be put in jeopardy.

The mother filed statements dated August 2021, 3 November 2011, 19 October 2022, 6 January 2023, 15 May 2023, 17 July 2023, 31 May 2023 and 5 September 2024.

In her live evidence she said she wanted to change what she had said, namely that there were ‘only 3 or 4 calls’, when she initially set up the calls, she did say on a daily basis so she would change it to daily to begin with, and then they tapered out, there were only a couple in Norfolk, otherwise her statements were true.

She said Benji was a very happy little boy, funny, clever, a monkey, he likes practical jokes, asks a lot of questions, very inquisitive, very active mind, he is very active, he has lovely friends, nice school, does a lot of activities, is into karate, calisthenics, dodgeball and football. She denied they had an affair, she and Charlie were living in separate houses, he was in an apartment near his workplace. The father has alleged parental alienation from the very beginning of proceedings, she is frightened, she is not surprised as it masks the abuse, she is in a difficult position on the one hand trying to show what happened to them and on the other not manipulating or alienating. She was surprised he was seeking a change of residence; she doesn’t know why when he can see a really happy boy and knows the background.

She has a number of criticisms of Dr Downs, she has heard her evidence now, she has minimised the abuse especially on Benji, she didn’t come across as though she understood trauma in a child, children act in different ways, her report really worried her when she said she was harming Benji as it’s not what she wants to do. Dr Van Velsen talked of her PTSD symptoms, these proceedings have been very long, she still has memories of what happened, lots of guilt for what the children went through, she is not a good sleeper and still has flashbacks, she feels sick about giving evidence, it is not nice being painted in a certain light. Lots of voices in here worry her, she feels they are against her, she feels the lone voice.

If the court ordered contact, it would be difficult to do as she would know she would be bringing him to someone who abused him directly and her and Leah. It would be a difficult position to be in when you know you are frightened and your child is frightened, it would have quite a significant effect.

The calls ended when he asked Benji if he would like to come and see him and to show him on video the house he was living in, at the end of the call Benji came downstairs upset and said to her mum, ‘do you think daddy will be angry I didn’t show him the house.’ He started to show signs of worry, she spoke to the social worker and said what had happened, she asked if there should be a break the social worker said yes it might be good to give him a break. It was not an abrupt stop, she just wanted some time to get him settled. They were in a new place, things started to come out, she just wanted a bit of time, there was no intention to never speak to anyone again. She believed the paternal grandparents were present when the father was asking questions.

She didn’t know what harm the paternal grandparents would cause to Benji if they had contact, she knows how they were to her and the things they said about her in the beginning, they were not nice, they didn’t approve of her and were hostile. They called her a ‘white whore’ with ‘bastard children.’ The father told her they were saying that. It went on for 18 months. She doesn’t know if how they thought of her would be the way they would speak about her to Benji. The paternal grandmother was there when she called the Police in 2017, the first thing she did was go into Leah’s room and say, ‘this is what he is like don’t worry,’ then she went down and spoke to the Police, she believed confirming what the father said that she hit him, it wasn’t her she was helping it was her son, she was almost condoning what happened. She provided a statement for the Fact-Finding hearing against her.

There was a period of 18 months when the paternal family didn’t speak. They came to visit after Benji was born and brought the father’s sisters, there were lots of arguments between the father and his sisters. Leah and Jake were there, they didn’t want to be introduced to them just Benji. The father took great offence, they fell out in a big way then they didn’t speak till he was 2, so for about 18 months. From 2017 they visited every 8 weeks or so. He is their first grandchild. She would like to think they would adhere to any orders for contact but doesn’t know for definite.

She has made contact proposals for the paternal grandparents as it is important for him to know that side of the family in terms of his identity. She recognises what experts have said, it should start with video calls for her to have a conversation with them and to try and build some sort of relationship for Benji going forward.

Leah is doing really well , she has had counselling, she suffered a lot of panic attacks after what she went through, she has a lovely relationship with Benji.

The father absolutely needs to have updates and school reports, she would like it to be monthly as weekly is a lot, her mother could send emails. She felt sick when she received the messages from him as she didn’t know what she was going to get, she felt criticised a lot, she worried every time if what she had provided was enough or right. She sent school reports each time they came out, one or two times he asked via solicitors but they were not out yet.

She felt from listening to the father’s evidence he was critical of her Our Family Wizard communications, she didn’t feel he had anything nice to say, she wanted him to be nice about her for a minute as she is doing her best for his son and she thought he would acknowledge that, she didn’t hear anything nice, he still wants to hurt her and she doesn’t know if he would do that through Benji as well.

She thought from his past admissions he may portray a negative image of her to Benji but she had not portrayed a negative image of him to Benji. She was asked what her plan was; she said letterbox contact one way once a month, updates sent through someone else. Currently he is supposed to send letters monthly but there has not been one each month and gifts on special occasions but it’s not working very well as Benji doesn’t have the best reaction, she is trying. She reads the letters, it is what works and doesn’t take him back a step, there is no solid plan. The only plan is one-way updates once a month sent by someone else.

She doesn’t want the father to go away, Benji should know who his father is, but safely and at his pace. When she asked the Guardian if father’s ever give up it was the proceedings she wanted to stop as it was causing Benji distress, her only focus was to stop harm being caused to Benji. The giving up part was ‘do fathers stop pushing?’ when you see your child stressed she was questioning the whole process. The proceedings have not been very nice, long and throughout she has followed orders and directions. She understands all options are open to the court including a change of residence.

She was asked what she hoping for after the Schedule of Concessions, she said the Fact-Finding hearing showed there had been abuse, she Leah and Benji had been abused, it needed to be considered, it was the underlying basis of how he would have contact, it needed to be taken seriously. It was suggested the findings included a toxic relationship, she said that term has been used to imply they were jointly abusive, it wasn’t that at all. She was asked if she contributed and said on the concession document it said arguments would be started from them both, lots of times she would ask him to apologise to her Leah and Benji and that would anger him and cause lots of arguments. As to her responsibility she said she felt guilty Benji would stand in front of her and say to his father, ‘stop shouting at mummy or Leah’, when asked again she said she felt responsible for Benji being involved in it and she should have left sooner. She was reminded she had conceded using inappropriate language in front of the children, she said she didn’t make him abuse them, she denied taking no responsibility for the toxic relationship.

She had never said anything bad about the father or paternal grandparents to Benji, it was his lived experience, she had not told him she thought he was bad, she had tried to remove his fears with work done and help and support. She had taken them away from an abusive relationship it was her job, she would carry on protecting him from the father and his family.

The reference to her ‘fleeing’ in the letter from the Local Authority, he had been arrested in April and bailed 100 miles away from the home, she had moved, fleeing was when you move away from something dangerous and he would come back. She had told Children Services she was worried his family would snatch Benji as they had been in touch to spend time with him, she was very concerned as she didn’t know what they were going to do as they hadn’t been kind. The report does refer to him being Indian and disrespectful to women, that was them confirming he is Indian, and he is disrespectful to women. She was worried about his family snatching him as the relationship wasn’t a good one, there were some good times when they were nice, they had a nasty streak about her, they excluded her, didn’t ever seem to approve of her, it has an effect if you do it to a mum, she was making sure he was safe from someone who had been unkind. The reference to Honor Based Violence came from the Police, she didn’t use that language.

She agreed she contacted the paternal grandparents to set up calls, she wanted to keep things as normal as she could. She thought they were supporting her, then she spoke to the Paternal Grandmother on the phone, she reached out as she was worried, she could hear her scribbling in the background, she asked why she was writing things down, then she started to get concerned what was happening and if they were nice not because they were being nice but she might face legal proceedings. She wasn’t worried she would lose her son but be taken to court over contact, they would speak through solicitors generally and make threats to use them. She asked them for a bit of time. She was put in a family support process, work started with Children’s Services and the court process ran in parallel, it involved Cafcass, who said no interim contact.

She has now heard the expert evidence, Benji doesn’t want to see his father, he is old enough to share his experiences and show trauma responses, she would decide it was not in his best interests a relationship like that. Dr Van Velsen did say he was low risk, she respected her as an expert but doesn’t agree he is low risk due to the psychological impact on Benji and Leah. Dr Downs’ report didn’t take enough consideration of who Benji was and what he has been through, she was not balanced about the harm he suffered. She doesn’t accept her report, if the harm came from taking him from something healthy then if would be significant harm, significant harm happens to children in an abusive family or if they start to see it as ok.

She said the texts saying Benji was upset about a painting came after some writing going on in the background and the recording of the phone call, she didn’t understand why that was happening, so when Benji got upset on one of the calls she thought oh God they are doing something bad as she knew where this was going, they were trying to paint a bad picture of her, so when he showed upset she panicked as to what they were going to think of her so she lied about him not being upset about the call, but she was telling the truth now. Being in that situation was horrible when you think something is happening like that and you would do anything to stop it happening. It was suggested scribbling was an arbitrary reason to stop contact, she said she stopped it as Benji was saying he didn’t want to speak to his father and was showing signs of worry. She spoke to the social worker who said it was a good idea to have a break.

She knows the father loves Benji and wants to see him she assumes. There were good times with all of them, absolutely there was, the abuse was more and more towards the end. They were together 6 years. If she were in his position she would be desperate to see Benji but the difference was she wasn’t abusive to children.

The paternal grandparents’ messages in April 2020, they would have been desperate to see their grandchild, they have no boundaries, they did make videos and take photos before that point, she saw calls being recorded so she asked the question as she found it a strange thing to do, then she was told it hadn’t happened, she hadn’t given permission. Her parents weren’t given the same boundaries but her parents wouldn’t record video calls without telling her, she can see they would want pictures but why not mention it was happening and then why lie about it. She was concerned they were evidence gathering as they had a solicitor, and she didn’t know why as they were having contact. The only people keeping the father alive to Benji was the paternal grandparents. She explained to them she wanted a little bit of time and then she followed the court processes.

Benji worked with Action for Children for longer than 6 months as they were part of the Family Support Process for 18 months. It was prior to the Fact-Finding Hearing in November 2021. The Cafcass officer told Benji she was the person who would speak to the Judge and put across what he wants, he was certainly not coached. She said there was nothing deliberate, they were experiences they had together, all the experiences were upsetting, he was not coached, there were no stories told to him, no narratives, they were his own experiences.

She was asked whether she had contributed to the toxic relationship, she said she accepted the finding in respect to arguments. In relation to the time when she described her solicitor as useless, and when a social worker was asked to send a letter to her solicitor saying she was not in the room when the wishes and feelings work was done, she was not evidence gathering, the question was raised and the document asked for. In relation to the life story work, it was for her Leah and Benji separately, they had to give their experiences of the father over time, it was not for Benji but for Professionals and the school to know his experiences, it was not fed to him. She was never with Leah and Benji when they did their sessions, she did book reading with one or two together. She was always separate from them. The information was never said to him, she doesn’t know if they were read to him in sessions. October 2022 are Benji’s worry book drawings where he says he wants Daddy to die and draws him dead on the floor. Contact had not been going well in April 2020, it was not nice the things he had drawn about. He has not been asked whether he wants him to die, he has not said it recently. She agreed the drawings were very unfortunate, it was unfortunate what he went through. She agreed a child should grow up knowing both parents, it is why she got him support to remove the fear, she doesn’t want him anxious or worried. She wasn’t playing the system it was his trauma coming out, she was a victim, what kind of mother would she be if she promoted contact with someone like that, she was not punishing the father she was safeguarding Benji. She was asked what the risk of harm was, she said Benji had lived experiences of his father frightening him, it came out in the work he did with professionals. She was asked what the risk was now and said Benji was still frightened of his father and what he went through, it was not ok to say he can’t remember and wouldn’t be triggered by things. She has not created a narrative of lived experiences and then relies on him repeating them. She did say that ‘Benji has a voice and she feels he is not being heard’, but she hasn’t created a narrative, it is his recollection, she didn’t want him frightened. Benji did say to the Guardian recently ‘I have a voice and need to be listened to’ he was not echoing her words, he has a voice an important one, he is taught that at school. He did tell the Guardian that he still has to think of him, that is not her position it is Benji’s. When the Guardian met with Benji he did speak to her, he is very articulate, he is not mirroring her. He does take after his dad, some mannerisms, certain faces, he looks like his dad and he knows that as she has told him. He has not seen a recent photo of his dad, the relationship is not like that at the moment, he has a negative reaction to any mention of his father. She speaks about the father in a positive manner, he is frightened of his father and doesn’t want to see him. He should not have to meet his abuser, it would be very harmful, she can’t say when he will be ready for any form of contact, it needs to be at his pace and not pushed, his reaction to the contact centre took him back. She would do what was in his best interest. She tried what the experts said, she heard Dr Downs say his reaction could be him having to say he didn’t want to see him anymore, but she knows Benji and what he has been through, she doesn’t agree with Dr Downs or her practice, she did agree to her as an expert and the letter of instruction, there are parts of her report she doesn’t agree with, she doesn’t agree with how she obtained the photos and videos and questions her showing them to him when he has been abused. The last time he saw photos of his father and the paternal family was with Dr Downs. She has spoken positively, she has tried to do that, she has not been horrible about them, she doesn’t want to cause him distress. Any contact needs to be when it is safe and at his pace, he is frightened of his father. As to how he could signal that, a joint letter of apology was put forward by a couple of professionals involved to see if it sparked curiosity. He is an abuser, all she is doing is protecting her children. She would find it very difficult to bring him to contact because of what she has been through. She has tried her best. Benji has said it has gone on too long because he been asked a lot of times what he wants, it was not her words. It was suggested she had prolonged proceedings by litigation tactics and her recent application to adjourn and transfer up, she said she in no way wants to prolong proceedings or delay things, it might look like it was tactical. She had agreed therapy with another therapist but the Health Visitor had raised to the Guardian and other professionals that her work was framed around high conflict parenting and not domestic abuse so was not correct therefore her solicitor applied for a stay. The therapist recommended a twelve-month break. The Re W application was linked to the re-opening of the Fact-Finding hearing, initially she didn’t want to do that, the reason was to try and make sure the seriousness of the findings was there, she kept being challenged that his experiences were his experiences, therefore linked the Re W to the Fact-Finding so Benji could share his experiences and the court could hear his way of talking and language, it was not to harm him but to get his voice heard, none of it was granted so it didn’t delay things. She has spent £350,000 it is the cost of a nice local house, it is just how much it is costing to stop them saying alienation. She had followed all the expert recommendations and orders, she didn’t think she was unreasonable not committing to family therapy in January 2023, the reason why therapy stopped was because it was for high conflict parenting and not trauma, she engaged with the child therapist and parenting coach. It was not her intention to get the therapist to align with her, she asked her legal team what she should do, it was running in parallel with court proceedings, and they didn’t want it to be, she thought it was about speaking freely but it carried on being in court. They were in favour of a break for Benji, they were not just doing it for her, Benji has lived experiences, the father said she had recruited Leah, that term shouldn’t be used when talking about someone who has been abused.

She did move to Norfolk in May 2020. It was where she had met Charlie originally. There was no pressure from her mother to stop contact. They had told her to leave the father on several occasions. Her mum spoke to the father’s mum when she was in Norfolk, she gave her number to call if needed. She had given the father’s mum her mother’s number previously. They didn’t have a relationship where her mum would promote contact. Charlie has spent a lot of his pension on the proceedings, they began to cohabit again in October 2022. Her solicitor sent an email when Charlie moved back in. Benji had met Charlie and Jake a few times, it was gradual, it was 100% in her mind how it would shift the dynamics. Charlie is a good dad, Benji refers to him as dad. He knows he is not his biological father. She was worried at first as she didn’t want it to look like she had replaced the father, she asked the Guardian if it was ok, she said yes. Her legal aid stopped in August 2022, she left her legal aid solicitor and moved to her current solicitor. She wanted her say and they helped her. Charlie has helped her pay. They all know she is protecting Benji; Charlie knows what Leah went through, he isn’t happy how the father treated Leah but he doesn’t say anything to him. Benji asked if he could call him dad he said ok. It is a case she only wants letterbox contact going forward.

He did ask what they had done to celebrate Diwali, she has sent information about what they did. Leah bought him a book, he is aware of all the backgrounds he has, when they were together she did a lot. She has not taken him to any Asian or Diwali events, he is missing out on that side as he doesn’t want to see his father. She can see what is being said about him growing up hating part of himself, she doesn’t know what it is like growing up mixed race. The father raised the issues he had growing up. Benji’s best friend’s mum is half Indian, she hopes if there are issues the community will help. It is why she put the grandparents’ proposal forward. She didn’t do it earlier as she hadn’t heard from them in years, they became parties three years down the line.

Dr Downs last evidence was if there was splitting if could be down to the domestic abuse he saw, she agrees with that, he is showing signs of that, he doesn’t want to see his father as he abused him, he is an abusive person. Splitting could be harmful if he had been removed from an environment which was not harmful, there was no balance to the abusive side, it is missing what he has been through, minimisation of his lived experiences which is not fair on him.

She did email the father, her understanding of fleeing was leaving a dangerous situation, it did not need to be the same day, she was not lying when she said she would make sure he always had contact, but she went with what Benji was saying, she was not playing the system when she came back to Norwich. She did follow the recommendations of the experts, Dr Downs has not taken into consideration Benji’s feelings and trauma. Dr Van Velsen did say he was low risk. She told the therapists what happened, they made their recommendations and the father didn’t follow them.

She did try to avoid a final hearing. Her proposals were trying to end the proceedings, they have been very expensive, she was trying to get something out there child focused at his pace and an apology which has not come through to Benji, she spoke to the Guardian about it and they talked about the grandparents. She should have left the relationship sooner for Benji, it gave her Benji so she doesn’t regret it, there were good times as well. She would like the proceedings ended and take it forward with the help of a social worker or something like that. She did suggest the child therapist could do it. The video call would be the father and Benji supported by her. It wasn’t getting off the ground when she went through it with the Guardian. She would find it difficult to support contact because of what they went through. She spoke to the Guardian and that is why she focused on the grandparent proposals.

The Our Family Wizard, she felt he was trying to find out what he was doing and the children he mixed with, there were safeguarding concerns, not because he will snatch him, she doesn’t know if he would do that. He is a threat in her mind as he abused them, she worries about Benji being harmed, psychologically, Benji would be very frightened if he turned up. She tried to give him lots of information, she felt the focus back was critical, what was she doing to support his heritage, trying to find out names of friends who he mixed with to criticise further, the Guardian said two names was fair for this stage. He has had school reports, doctors reports, ophthalmic records. She denied he only knew he wore glasses from the pictures. She denied she is putting him through trauma now. The father is a worrying part of her history.

She didn’t tell him about the panic attacks on Our Family Wizard. She had communicated that he was having difficulties receiving gifts and she got nothing back to acknowledge he was understanding of the situation, she had said it a few times that he was not reacting very well so when he had panic attacks she did it through her solicitors. She didn’t share on the app as it was to send information about activities and updates, when she was asked specific questions she replied. Charlie did know straight away about the panic attacks as he is in the family home, he is a role model figure who he calls dad. She did say that if his behaviour continued she wouldn’t engage in the App, there was a framework they needed to follow, it was the first time they had any contact since she left, the therapist set a careful framework, there was a long line of him straying outside asking personal questions, she asked the therapist what to do, they said to remind him of the framework and she asked her solicitor’s advice. She is Benji’s mum, it doesn’t show she was unreasonable, she was trying to keep to the boundaries of the framework, a lot was put on her, he was straying outside what should be done, he needed to be told what was to be done. The way he was speaking was very critical, it was the first contact she had had with him, he used to be that way, it was clear his behaviour had not changed. Some requests for information were innocuous and some were not.

In relation to not being of dual heritage she meant more, he is also Irish, she was not suggesting he was not Indian, she has told Benji about Diwali the same as she does St Patricks Day, she doesn’t focus on one thing. Benji eats beef now. The father said he was not devout Hindu and he eats meat, when he was in the home she was respectful and didn’t cook or eat beef, he said it wasn’t a problem. She has promoted the father’s background, but tried to balance it against all he has, it is difficult as Benji has a negative view of his father.

If the court transferred residence, she would have to obey the decision but she doesn’t think Benji would manage it. He is frightened of his father. Benji was subject to domestic abuse as was she and Leah. It would not be a tantrum situation, he would be traumatised, lonely, confused, frightened, he wouldn’t understand, his tummy ache would come back and he would wet himself again.

Dr Van Velsen did say she acts on what Benji says, she knows his lived experiences, what he went through, what he says, he shows he is frightened, his voice is important, as his mum she protects him, she does listen to his voice. She is not constantly asking him what he wants, professionals have asked him his wishes and feelings, Benji was in the middle of things before the proceedings started, he was put in that situation by his father stopping her from getting him. In terms of giving him emotional permission to say he wants to see his paternal family she has put in place all the work to get his fears removed, at home she speaks positively. She can see the argument it has reinforced his fears but validating his fears is also acknowledging it happened, she can’t erase it. In terms of positive things, she tries to say his father does love him, he is sorry about what he has done as he said it in the impact statement but she doesn’t tell him about the statement. Benji was not asked by the Guardian what she says to him. He would be sensitive to what upsets her, he would hold her face when she cried. He knows they all went through things together. She has had a lot of counselling as a victim of domestic abuse and done a 6 week program at his school this year ‘How to Manage Anxiety in Children’.

She agreed since 28 August 2024 she has said Benji should have a relationship with the paternal grandparents. They did write through their solicitors 16 months ago in May 2023. She has not reached out to them since May 2020. She did tell them she needed time. She was focused on Benji and the father in the proceedings. They condoned the abuse, they made a statement against her in the Fact Finding hearing, they didn’t reach out to her in the last 3 years, if they had contacted her she could have had a discussion with them. In July 2024 she had wanted the Guardian to carry out a Safeguarding assessment of them. She did say in July 2024 their application should be stayed to get the father’s side of things out of the way as there were lots of voices involved in this one all in the same proceedings and she wanted to deal with one and then the other. It wasn’t the case that prior to August she had wanted nothing to do with them, in the beginning she had asked for space, then she heard nothing for some time. Benji has a view they want him to see his father, gifts were not received the way they should be, then she spoke to the Guardian, she said they spoke highly and positively of her and wanted to move forward. She did say in the Fact-Finding hearing that the grandparents had nothing to offer Benji and there would be no benefit.

She disagreed with Dr Van Velsen saying for her the only family that matters was the maternal family, her family mean a lot to her, they are kind loving nice good role models but not the only ones that matter, the issue with the paternal grandparents was they were hostile to her, not nice, they said awful things, the relationship had good parts and not so good.

The grandparents were part of the Action for Children life story work ‘Daddy’s family didn’t want mummy and daddy to live together’ the work took place over 6 months, this was a small piece of work, these were things before he was born, Benji didn’t read it as it was a narrative story she contributed to so Benji would not have to talk of it. Social Services put it together to give to Benji’s school or professionals, a background explanation of the abuse. He was not told it and he was not read it.

It is important for Benji to have a connection with the paternal family, she has tried with his father but he is frightened of him, the Guardian said to work on Benji with his grandparents, she said it was clear they didn’t condone the abuse, it was the first time other than 2 July she had heard that, it was really nice, they were not approving of her but apparently they spoke highly to the Guardian which was nice to hear. She did say last year the relationship would have to be built from scratch, it is the current situation. It was suggested they had a lovely relationship with Benji, she said they had a relationship, there has been no contact for a while, work needs to be done. When they visited him he was 2 years old he enjoyed it. There were arguments he witnessed, he saw a negative side. Contact stopped as Benji was anxious and worried, she had just asked for some time, needed space, now he needs work to build it up again. She did say they missed one year May 2016 to May 2017 but she was going by what the father said in his evidence, it was until he was 2 years.

They were racist, they called her a ‘white whore with bastard children’ they didn’t approve of her. They were focusing on themselves, and she was focused on Benji. She had not experienced them in a good way, at the end of the day they had not been very good to her, they said awful things about her other children, she doesn’t know if they would say things to Benji. She had proposed supervising their contact as she thought it would be a good way forward. Benji was cross in his meeting with the Guardian about the grandparents. She has had a conversation with Benji, they were talking about it in the meeting with the Guardian and she said it after, she had not put it in her final evidence. When it was suggested the language used by Benji mirrored hers, she said he was a very articulate boy, any child will mirror the way their parents speak and mirror their phrases. He does speak that way, his language is very articulate and advanced, he has each time the Guardian has met him.

He didn’t open the first presents the grandparents sent, she opened them, she can’t recall if they were Diwali or Birthday presents. It was suggested she leave them on a table to spark curiosity. She has read the cards; she has passed them to him but they have not sparked curiosity. As they were combined with gifts from his father it was then decided to do it separately, she tried to open them, Easter Eggs, none of it has worked. She heard what Dr Downs and the contact centre said about his animated reaction to photos of his grandparents. She denied that didn’t line up with a child who wouldn’t open an Easter Egg, the connection Benji made to the Guardian was they will get him to see his father, he doesn’t want to see them collectively. They did send a Marvel card and gifts, history books as they read he liked history, lego and a water gun for his 9^th birthday and a letter saying how proud they were of his school report. She always says ‘let’s sit down and open them together’, she always says ‘they want you to know they are there’. She has started reading the letters and put the gifts out, she thought he would like them. They have said he doesn’t need to know who they are from, that is what she has done, it didn’t work, but she does want to try. She did refer to them in the App as ‘the grandparents’ she calls them that, dad and grandparents. The gifts are in a cupboard in the house, he could go and look at them when he wants. He is still saying he wants nothing to do with them. He assumes they will get him to see his father. It would be good if he could be told that is not what they are doing, it needs to come from them.

The paternal grandfather did come to Ireland in Summer 2013 to meet her but she wouldn’t meet him. She did say she met them for the first time when she was pregnant, but she had met them two times before they married, they came to Ireland, and she cooked for them. They all had dinner two times before they got married. It was not all happy, there were good things, then arguments involving his sisters over the engagement, it was up and down, not all great. She wasn’t suggesting they were only interested as she was having a boy but it was the fact she was pregnant when they became interested, then his sisters caused issues. The grandparents did come over after the birth, they drove them back and forth as the father couldn’t drive. She had said in the Fact-Finding they had been supportive and helpful. She bought the grandmother a Claddagh, love loyalty and friendship, it says that underneath. She did send her a heartfelt message that she wouldn’t have managed without her, it wasn’t a cold, unloving, abusive relationship at that point, she always wanted to be accepted and when she was she was absolutely delighted, it turned after that, she was again called names and it was devastating.

They did call her a ‘white whore’ she met the father in 2011 and didn’t meet them till 2014, they had conversations with the father when she was there about her, it was at various stages all of them, his mother, father, sisters, she was having messages passed to her by the father. She would hear the screaming and shouting, her being called a ‘bitch’ by his mother, he told her they called her a ‘white whore with bastard children’. The mother calling her a ‘bitch’ isn’t in any of her 8 statements but she has been consistent. It is what happened and what she was told by the father was said to him. She mainly had difficulties with his sister Amelia. She didn’t remember Amelia saying she wanted to meet Leah and Jake but wanted to get to know her first, she recalled a conversation on the bed, she was feeding Benji, the father came up the stairs and said Amelia was not ready to meet them, she came up on her own and sat on the bed, she was saying she was not ready to meet Leah and Jake just Benji, she couldn’t remember any other part of the conversation. The paternal grandfather did call her a ‘joke’. She didn’t want his sisters to visit in May 2016. She disagreed his family wanted her to go to their home, she wasn’t invited, the issue was the way the father had conducted the engagement, he had not followed the process, he had an argument with his sisters, they were not nice, the paternal grandparents said he had not followed the correct procedure. She didn’t pursue the allegation that he hit his sister in May 2016. She agreed they needed to move on from the past and that is why she had made proposals, they were not sitting behind a screen at her insistence it was just how it was.

The paternal grandmother did babysit Benji in August 2017 whilst she and the father had gone out for a meal, she will accept she treated them. She called the police. She didn’t pursue any findings at the Fact-Finding hearing. The father said she had hit him and he was the victim, it wasn’t true. The paternal grandmother spoke to the Police. Leah said she went in to her and said ‘he always does this’, it is not in the police disclosure, Leah said that in her statement for the Fact-Finding hearing.

In August 2017 Honour Based Violence was raised, the Police raised it, they came back the following day to speak about anything that happened previously, she didn’t use the initials HBV they did. She did tell them she was scared of the father’s family and the fact they would try and take Benji, it was the day after paternal grandmother had babysat Benji and paid for their meal out. The police used the HBV language to summarise the background she gave. She did say in the Fact-finding that nobody had threatened to snatch Benji and it is correct nobody had. The allegation of Honour Based Violence was serious. She did criticise the fact they would speak other languages, when negative discussions were going on the father would do it, it was isolating. They never had an argument with her, they had arguments with the father in front of Benji. They are multi-lingual, they can go in and out of languages, it was a way of covering negative things about her. She doesn’t understand those languages. She didn’t know what they said. She did make allegations they would snatch Benji when no threat was made and about them using their own language when she didn’t know what was said, it came from a place of them not being very nice to her. Benji did bring them together, hopefully she can now have a conversation with them. There was babysitting, they didn’t go out often, she did trust the paternal grandmother to follow routines. She did say in her evidence they were never on their own with him and Leah was there, as far as she remembers Leah was always there, she was not there to supervise, she was just there. The Paternal grandmother was there because she trusted her to care for Benji, she doesn’t remember calling her at short notice or her getting up early to cover when she was having work meetings but she did trust her to care for Benji. He was 2. She didn’t specify when they should come, she and the father both decided, they wanted to come more often but they did follow the parameters. May 2017 to May 2020 they would come every 8 weeks, she couldn’t remember if they offered to help with the move from Ireland to Southern England in May 2016 when the families were not in contact. There are photos of Benji with paternal grandparents and Aunts in Ireland in 2016. There are photos from August 2017, Benji would spend quality time with them up until January 2020. They did have video calls; he did have regular contact from the age of 2 until May 2020. He loved his grandparents, and she knows they loved him. She doesn’t remember Leah being taken on shopping trips, she remembers paternal grandmother buying her a takeaway when Leah had her friend over, Leah would receive gifts on Diwali and special occasions. The messages between Leah and paternal grandmother show her wishing her good luck on her 1^st day back at school, she was 14 and birthday greetings, sometimes they got on well, Leah has put forward how she felt. This was the backdrop of what was going on in the home. They knew about the abuse and wanted them to stay in a relationship. The pictures show good times and there were, but there was the background of abuse that they knew about. It worries her they had no insight into what was best for them, they didn’t say they should leave. It was only on 2 July 2024 she heard they didn’t condone the domestic abuse, they put in a statement in the Fact-Finding, about the August 2017 incident she didn’t seek findings in respect of it.

She did exchange messages with the father’s younger sister Ella in August 2017, she thinks she sent her photos of the party, she did say to Ella she was ‘truly brilliant’ with Benji, she was very good with him, she spent time with him, looking after him. They did move forward, she reached out a lot. She can’t remember when Benji last saw his Aunt, she has spoken about his Aunts, she said they were there and love him. She doesn’t talk about the paternal family every month, it is difficult talking about things, she treads carefully. Ella does say ‘mum saysyou are coming home soon which will be lovely,’ she was told to go there with the other sister who had been awful, it wasn’t the right environment to go to, she didn’t feel she had been invited to their home, it was to get her with the other sister, she never went there and nor did Benji. The messages were from 2017, it was only in the last couple of months she was invited to go to their home. She did meet the maternal grandmother in Southern England, she doesn’t remember her being invited to the paternal grandmother’s home. After separation in April she did have supportive messages from Ella, she was in contact with the paternal grandmother to arrange telephone contact, the paternal grandmother wasn’t imposing times and conditions, she was saying she would speak whenever suits. She did stop the calls on 14 May 2020 and blocked her, she responded on 18 May 2020 asking her to call the maternal grandmother as she wanted space. It is understandable she was worried but she had said she wanted space. She stopped the calls as Benji said he didn’t want to do them. The father’s call was the concern but Benji was passed from paternal grandmother to father. The concerns about scribbling, she doesn’t know where it is in her evidence, it is not why she stopped calls.

The paternal grandparents would take videos and photos of Benji when they were visiting, when asked if they were recording they told her no, it was wrong of them to lie about it, she asked as it came up on the screen, why wasn’t she told if there was nothing wrong with it. She thought it was a strange thing to do, if she had asked she would have said it seems reasonable, it is reasonable to have a memory of a video. Whilst they may say the month of videocalls was delightful before and after he was not keen, there were times in the calls when he was happy and engaging but it is not the whole picture. She did say he wasn’t keen to speak to his father, the grandparents do say in a message they love him and want to be seen as separate from the father, she doesn’t know if she received it. Benji does think they are horrible people. Her plan going forward is to first have a conversation with them, she has not reached out to them, it is still with solicitors in negotiation. She denied she had triangulated the paternal grandparents with the father or sees them as all bad, Benji sees them as a unit but it is not from her, he said to the Guardian why did they not stop him, she asked the Guardian what to say, she has been told not to acknowledge the abuse and reassure him, other times to validate it. She has said it to Benji, he has been rejecting, but she will keep trying. Whilst Dr Downs said it was not a good idea for her to be involved, she disagreed, it was important for her to have a relationship with them and Benji to build something more positive, she disagreed video calls were not a good idea and said Dr Downs had said the same about the contact centre which had not helped him at all, She doesn’t know how he would react if she was not there. Benji doesn’t now know any Punjabi words the grandparents were teaching him, that is why she suggested helping Benji have a relationship with them.

She said the Action for Children words and pictures work was the Personal Story Book the Safeguarding Lead kept in her office, he had a blank colouring book which was the worry book at home. They are written to a child. They are the social worker’s drawings, there are a couple Benji puts a stick people face on. There is a sun and baby drawn by Benji, she doesn’t know what the social worker did, he had to talk about his experiences, as he drew on them, she assumes they went through them. In the covering email she does tell the teaching assistant work has been done directly, therefore Benji was aware of what was said. He is inputting, she doesn’t know if he was read the whole thing, she presumes so from what Action for Children said. The email was from the health visitor to the Guardian raising concerns about the therapy with the previously agreed therapist, she doesn’t think the Guardian had a view.

She spoke to Benji after the meeting with the Guardian about having calls from the paternal grandparents, she asked how he would feel about video calls and then see how it went and he said he would do it, not in a massively excitable way, just ‘fine I will do it’. She has had no subsequent discussions as she is not entirely sure of the outcome. She doesn’t want Benji to be angry rude or upset, she asked the Guardian what to do or say, the Guardian helped her with that.

She said it was difficult to shield Benji from her negative feelings, she had never said anything bad to Benji in the home, he would have picked up on the stress and upset. Dr Van Velsen said she was placing a burden on Benji, she has tried to ensure his voice is heard, but upsetting or placing a burden on him was never her intention. She would find it difficult to supervise contact, a third party would depend on who it was and how he felt about it. She was worried about how he was in the meeting with the Guardian, she doesn’t like him angry or upset, he has spoken to a lot of people and is frustrated, he is asked what he wants, but what is happening is not what he asked for, he is confused and frustrated, potentially he could ask the paternal grandparents questions about how he is feeling, they could answer instead of her, she hoped they would abide by the rules of no contact with the father.

She said she was asked to speak freely of her experiences in therapy with the parenting coach. She heard from the paternal grandparents by an email to her solicitors a week before they made their application, before that in May 2020. She did say in her statement the paternal grandparents didn’t see Benji for a year between May 2016 and May 2017 but she thought it was more the 12-18 months the father said. She told Children’s Services on 13 July 2020 she thought his family would try and gain access through the courts as the father said he had a solicitor in June 2020 and applied for contact. She did say his family called her a white whore to the Local Authority. In the Fact-Finding hearing she said they called her a white bitch. She never heard the paternal grandmother tell Leah ‘this is what he is like’ she gleaned it from Leah. Benji doesn’t stay overnight with anyone, not her parents, he wouldn’t want to stay overnight with the paternal grandparents, day contact in time if it goes at a pace he is ok with. She agreed with Dr Van Velsen, who said she was interested in the video approach, she could get on board with it.

As a preliminary point I should make it clear that I have no doubt whatsoever how much the mother loves Benji, when she described him to the court her face lit up with genuine pride and affection.

I accept she is a victim of domestic abuse pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. As I have previously expressed, I have considerable sympathy for the mother as what she endured must have been extremely frightening for her and she will have been concerned not only in respect of her own safety but also for her children. I do not doubt that has had an effect on her, that was the basis of her application for Dr Van Velsen to complete a psychiatric assessment of her, she found the mother was experiencing PTSD symptoms, albeit not to the level of a diagnosis, and made recommendations for her to improve her anxiety by the use of antidepressants and psychotherapy, the latter suggestion at least she has not taken up. I have been invited to carry out my own assessment of the mother under PD12J. I accept Dr Van Velsen’s assessment of her as a starting point. I have to consider the impact on the mother of any order for contact in light of the harm she has suffered and is at risk of suffering, and only make an order if I am satisfied the physical and emotional safety of the child and adult can be secured before during and after contact. I make it clear any orders I make would involve the use of third parties to manage the handovers and to supervise the contact itself, in my view, alongside the risk assessment of Dr Van Velsen of the father, and her clear opinion he is ‘low risk,’ I am satisfied the physical safety of the mother, and of course Benji, can be assured, not least when considering the question Dr Van Velsen said needed to be posed – namely what risk and to whom – and she was clear the risk would only come about if the parties reunified or the father showed a pattern of turning up her house which is not the case. In terms of her emotional safety and the effect any contact would have upon her, as I will set out below, I did not find her a straightforward witness. She told the court how difficult she would find such an order, I accept as a principle that would be the case. Dr Van Velsen said, when asked about the emotional effect on her of contact, that subjectively she does not want contact to happen, and if there is any suggestion of it, she become anxious, which accords with my own view. The difficulties are clearly as the expert said situational, because the mother has put photographs in the bundle indicating a career path which suggests she is able to work in very demanding and stressful situations without difficulties. When it was suggested her fears were a reason for the court not to order contact Dr Van Velsen immediately rejected that and said, ‘if ones goes by that, any parent could say that, and no child would ever have contact.’ In principle I agree with her view, and whilst I accept the mother is to some degree frightened of the father, what she says and how she feels, must be seen in light of what I have found as to her behaviour over the last 4 years. In my view her anxiety, with the correct safeguards, is not and should not be a reason to not order such contact.

I had the benefit of listening to and observing the mother over a period of hours whilst she gave evidence, however even allowing for the fact her experiences have made her vulnerable, particularly in the context of court proceedings, and notwithstanding the fact all the special measures she requested were granted, her evidence raised considerable concerns for me, quite outside any consideration of the father’s allegations of unreasonable prevention of contact/alienating behaviours, and I did not find her an impressive witness.

She makes statements, both in written documents and in oral evidence that are not only untrue but also easily verifiable, I referred to examples in my judgement on 2 July 2024 about her various descriptions of the Fact Finding hearing, ‘I gave evidence over three days inNovember,’‘the concessions document I was advised to agree on day 4,’ ‘the admissions document was produced at the father's insistence and instigation via his barrister on the third day of what was listed to be a 5 day hearing. It was finalised the next morning’ ‘Having given evidence for three days prior I was feeling drained ..I feel upset and disappointed that it took until the 23rd of November for the father to offer up this admissions document and that he waited until I had given 3 days of evidence before he did so’ which on the basis she gave evidence for 1 day spread across 2 days and the hearing was compromised the morning of day 3 are all incorrect and any reading of the transcript, obtained by her own solicitors, makes that clear. Such an approach has become even more apparent in these proceedings, and I will set out numerous examples within my analysis, but simply picking three for now, she stated she had not met the paternal grandparents prior to the birth of Benji and yet in her own previous statement accepted that she had met them twice before the parties had married. Despite giving instructions to her counsel only the day before to cross examine the father on the basis there were not daily telephone calls post separation, and that he was not telling the truth about it, immediately on going into the witness box she changed her position on that, which bearing in mind the evidence in support of it was from her own text message in the bundle proposing it in the middle of April 2020, it can hardly have been new information that caused her to reconsider. In cross examination she came up with an almost incomprehensible explanation about some texts saying Benji was upset about a painting, and told the court it was ‘after some writing going on in the background and the recording of the phone call she didn’t understand why that was happening so when Benji got upset on one of the calls she thought Oh God they are doing something bad as she knew where this was going they were trying to paint a bad picture of her so when he showed upset she panicked as to what they were going to think of her so she lied about his not being upset about the call but she was telling the truth now.’ Whilst of course I bear in mind the case of R v Lucas and the fact that just because a person lies about one thing it does not mean they have lied about everything, alongside the myriad of reasons why a person may lie, the fact here is the mother has been less than honest about so many matters, that in my judgement, the court has to exercise some caution before accepting what she says.

She lacked insight as to her own level of responsibility for what Benji has experienced, in making such a statement I am neither victim blaming nor minimising her own experiences, but it should not be forgotten the schedule of findings and concessions at iv. and v. includes concessions she made as to her behaviour within the home which affected the care of the children and which took place in front of the children. In circumstances where I have accepted Benji is a victim of domestic abuse, on the basis of those concessions, it must include in respect of the behaviour of both of his parents, as under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 children are victims if they ‘see hear or otherwise experience the effects of abuse.’ It was evident both from her written and oral evidence that she took no responsibility whatsoever for her role in the toxic relationship or for the arguments, verbal sparring and inappropriate language within the home, in stark contrast to the father who accepted full responsibility. She was simply not able to countenance that she had played any role, ‘However it is wrong of the father to make out ( as I believe he is trying to do ) that our relationship was one of equals in which the father and I were together responsible for what he describes as the cycle of escalation and the volatile and toxic nature of the relationship,’ in cross examination she said ‘the term (toxic) has been used to imply we were jointly abusive, it wasn’t that at all’ when reminded she conceded using inappropriate language she said, ‘she didn’t make him abuse them’. This is a view shared by Dr Van Velsen who noted she was fixed in her view the father was the perpetrator of the violence and all the difficulties in the relationship.

Furthermore, she seemed to be completely unable to appreciate, even as a concept, any harm whatsoever for Benji in the current situation, howsoever it came about, in terms of his rejection of the paternal family and/or being unable to engage with the entirety of his cultural identity. It was evident she accepted no responsibility for Benji’s current situation or any part she may have played in his current feelings about his father and the paternal family, either consciously or subconsciously. This is a view clearly expressed by Dr Downs.

In addition, and again in stark contrast to the father, she appeared unable to even take responsibility for her own actions and instead her approach to this case has been to make a raft of criticisms against everybody else or to simply reject what they say unless they are entirely aligned to her point of view, whether that be Dr Downs, Dr Van Velsen, the various judges who have heard the case, the Guardian and indeed her own solicitors at times, both past and present. I noted in the last judgement her criticisms of the solicitor for the child and Guardian, that they did not have Benji in mind when representing him at the Fact-Finding Hearing and ‘I remain unclear on what basis it was determined on behalf of Benji in his best interests that the Fact-Finding Hearing should conclude without hearing evidence from Leah and the father,’ which I considered to be unfair. At the start of this hearing she made allegations that the solicitor for the child and the Guardian proposed Dr Downs and drafted a letter of instruction inviting her to comment on parental alienation which ‘appears to be a pattern of guardians instructing psychologists who are parental alienation proponents to opine on contested concepts such as parental alienation in cases where there are findings of domestic abuse’ and yet at the same time gratefully referred in her evidence to the assistance the Guardian had given her in how to manage Benji, and in their recent meeting had asked her to assist with her proposal for the father to have contact going forward. I further note in the document below she refers to the Guardian as being ‘heavily criticised.’ She sought the recusal of DJ Russell and HHJ Shaw by way of her application in August 2022 and was highly critical of HHJ Shaw’s handling of the Fact Finding hearing and his approval of the Findings and Concessions Document and she incorrectly commented on the failure of the court to apply PD12J, ‘I saw mention of it in the magistrates reasons of the 13th of January 2021 but it hadn't been mentioned again since.’ She stated, ‘There has been a very unhelpful reframing of my relationship with the father as toxic, Such a description has no place in a schedule of findings’ which I considered to be a disingenuous statement, ignoring the fact it was her counsel who drafted the document across two court days on the basis of her instructions. Furthermore, in direct contravention of what she agreed in that document she states, ‘I wish to make it clear that despite what is said in the concessions document which I was advised to agree to on Day 4 of the hearing I do not retract my allegation that the Respondent held his hands around my throat until I passed out.’ In the notes disclosed from Action for Children she describes her then solicitors as ‘useless,’ she was less than complimentary in respect of her next firm of solicitors in August 2022 and in her most recent discussions with the Guardian at her final analysis she said ‘her solicitor had told her to put this in following the comments in court, something about actions speaking louder than words but she could not remember exactly. She said she sometimes wishes there were no lawyers as things get written that she has not said.’ She sent a long email to a local agency on 30 September 2022 seeking therapy for Benji, ‘Against his wishes Benji had to attend a contact centre and was forced to see his father when he said he didn’t want to go. He said to his face he no longer wanted to see him. He was forced to go in again. He refused to go in and wrote his father a letter asking for him to leave him alone and that he doesn’t want to see him because of the bad things he did. Again he was forced to go back by the father and a Cafcass Guardian. Benji broke down in the lobby fell to the floor crying and begging the social workers not to make him go in, he was holding his knees and rocking in the corner. This was one of the most horrific things I’ve ever seen ..’ She fails to mention in this that both orders for contact were made with her consent. She goes on to make various comments that are simply not correct; ‘The Cafcass Guardian been heavily criticised… I had been stopped in helping Benji but this has now changed… the father admitted to the abuse at the end of a fact find… he is also needing to attend a perpetrator programme..’ She has been highly critical of Dr Downs since August 2022, has made a raft of allegations again her alongside a formal complaint, and yet was content to rely on the results of her testing in labelling the father as ‘narcissistic’ and in cross examination appeared to agree with what she identified as splitting, albeit on the basis of her own suggestion that it was due to the domestic abuse, despite Dr Downs’ rejection of that. Dr Van Velsen, an assessment she sought, she equally rejected on the basis her assessment of the father as ‘low risk’ was wrong. In my view, her lack of insight into and responsibility for her own decision-making echoes her attitude towards her level of responsibility for the position Benji is now in.

It was also evident when listening to the mother in evidence, that unlike the father, and indeed the paternal grandmother, whose focus was clearly on Benji, she considers these proceedings to be all about her, whilst one could argue that is to be expected in light of experiences, her self-absorption and lack of reality, in the context of over 4 years of contentious litigation when she said she had wanted the father to be nice about her for a minute ‘as I am doing my best for his son and I thought he would acknowledge that, I didn’t hear anything nice’ was really quite pronounced. A huge part of her oral evidence was about her and the effect on her, and it was particularly telling when counsel for the father asked her, ‘You do realise these proceedings are not about you ?’ and she simply continued in the same vein. Her behaviour in the witness box was, as counsel for the father commented, noteworthy and in saying that I accept there is no one way a victim should behave, but she came over as self-assured and confident and at one stage laughed out loud, on a number of occasions she reverted to a little girl voice and her tears, save for when she was asked about a change of residence, were limited to when she described feeling slighted.

As I said in respect to the father I have a unique opportunity to view the parties not just while they are giving evidence but also during the proceedings themselves, in respect to the father and indeed the paternal grandmother, who attentively listened to the evidence or made notes, it was very evident the mother was largely disinterested in hearing what others had to say, she spent large proportions of the hearing on her phone, and it was of particular note to me that when the paternal grandmother gave what I considered to be very moving evidence to the court about her relationship with Benji and how much she missed him, she spent the entire time texting. Whilst I will return to the issue of her litigation conduct when considering the factual allegations, it was of note that her instructions to counsel were clearly to create as much deflection from the main issue of Benji’s welfare as possible, but also to cross examine witnesses at length and in a manner designed to provoke reactions, whilst perhaps understandable in relation to Dr Downs, against whom she had made a number of complaints, and in respect to the father who had perpetrated domestic abuse upon her, it was rather less understandable in relation to the paternal grandmother with whom she was purporting to want to rebuild a relationship and of whom she was supportive of having contact with Benji. She had counsel inviting the paternal grandmother to apologise to her in open court and then minutes later inviting her to have a meeting with her that very day. It all supported the fact that, in my judgment, she has lost focus of the fact these proceedings are actually about Benji and she is unwilling to move past the difficulties in the adult relationships.

She has filed 4 statements in these proceedings 27 October 2021, 3 July 2023, 13 June 2024 and 3 September 2024.

In her live evidence she said she had found the court process very difficult; she has heard all that has been said in relation to the father being an abuser, the toxicity in their relationship and the impact it had on the family which was appalling to hear. She has not seen Benji for 4.5 years, the Benji she read about from the Guardian’s final analysis is not the Benji she knew, he was very articulate from the moment he could speak, he was always happy energetic with lots of bounce from the moment he got up, he would try and get them out of bed, they would say give us 10 minutes and he would say no now. He could get sad if someone was saying something he didn’t want to hear, but with them he was always happy and energetic. He was the little boy who would say Daddima put Netflix on, they were so ignorant, they didn’t know what it was, he did at 2.5 years. After he was born they were there, the mother was not feeling well, she sat and held his finger. They are appalled by what they have heard, he was only a little boy, they loved him immensely. They have missed him for the last 4.5 years, it is difficult to describe it in words, every minute of every day the fact he is not part of their lives never goes away, they can’t get up, go to bed, look at their faces in the mirror, she loved him so much, he called her daddima, he gave her perspective, every memory is extrapolated to a huge extent, 4.5 years in 9 years, every day, he would sit on her lap, he knew her necklace was an om, a religious symbol, he called them Grandad and Daddima, Leah taught him, she was knocked down, it was wonderful.

It made her very very sad to hear that happy child had grown up saying things that did not reflect what they knew and who had such a wonderful relationship with them. Even post-separation he wanted to talk, he was engaged animated, he would tell knock knock jokes with his dad, they were very precious moments, he would say to his grandad draw a Gruffalo, the paternal grandfather didn’t know what one was. The child speaking to the Guardian is not recognisable, so angry, it hurts them to feel they have not protected him.

They didn’t make an application until May 2023 as they were hopeful that at some stage the parents would resolve their differences and there would be some contact and they could see Benji when the father did. They realised there was not going to be any for the foreseeable future, time is running out for them, the paternal grandfather is 70 she is 69, they want to enjoy special time with their grandson. There has been no contact with the mother since May 2020, she had been blocked and she didn’t know where she lived.

There was an argument in the family in May 2016 and she next saw Benji on a weekend in May 2017, she was there on the 20 May she remembered as it was her dad’s birthday, there had been a long gap so it was a very special time to see him, she has a picture of Benji with that date on her fridge, she sees it 10 times a day. There was a lot of background to their relationship and a lot has been said about how the situation came about, the father was engaged, they had an affair, those were difficult times, they didn’t go to the wedding as they were asked not to bring their daughters, they felt that was a step too far and they didn’t want the family split any further. They sent save the date cards to the extended family, some selective uncles and cousins but not others, to her best friend of 35 years and her husband, the father’s unofficial godparents, then they disinvited everyone.

In addition to the direct contact they had with Benji they would have video calls, when the father was home and the mother working and Leah had not yet moved in, he would call twice a week, then once he went back to work, once a week on a Thursday or Saturday.

She was babysitting in August 2017 when the police were called, she had very little knowledge other than what the mother would tell her, she was a very private person, she just happened to be there that day, she not heard anything of other incidents.

In terms of the allegation of being racist it all comes back to how she has been perceived, leaving the father aside, as grandparents they have had every type of allegation thrown at them, it has been horrible, it is like there is nothing they can say to explain anything, they are not racist, some of the things said about them are equally racist but they feel they cannot say that. They speak a number of Indian dialects and English. The paternal grandfather also speaks Spanish and they were very proud Benji took an interest in Spanish. They have a multi-cultural background. They have run nurseries alongside distinguished professional careers. The children speak every language, they are truly multi-cultural as are the staff; Polish, Punjabi, English, Romanian. The children have a huge impact on her life. She was aware the mother wanted safeguarding checks completed on them, she found it very hurtful as in her mind they had a very good relationship, the statements have been very painful to read, she has accepted she must be stupid as she didn’t see that the mother had so much disrespect for them or thought so little of them, or she made her feel as she does, as she has nothing but love and respect for her and nothing but a good relationship, not excellent as she said, she did not come to their home, but from her perspective she gave her all the love she had.

Even after the separation she felt she had a relationship with the mother, not based on her only interest being Benji but she had a relationship with the mother then Benji, she was the mother of her grandson so would always be important to her. She was very sad and upset what happened between them, then there were the bail conditions she never thought she would have to deal with such a situation, she was the one communicating with the mother, she was very mindful to make her aware she was dealing with her separately to what was happening with the father. The last message she received. She heard what the mother said, if scribbling made her lose her grandson she would never scribble again, she has no idea what she was referring to. They were in lockdown, the father was working in his office in the loft, the paternal grandfather was working in his office, it is a big house, they were on different levels, it was good weather, she was in the garden a lot, a large garden, there was no signal in the garden so she would run in and out, she would think of if the mother needed her, occasionally she would miss a call, run up 3 or 4 flights of stairs, she doesn’t know where the scribbling comes from. The solicitors letter was the first, they had waited three years, the response, they were disappointed by the top half but hopeful as she said she would consider her position on their contact with Benji. It appears she was stalling them.

They unfortunately only had one opportunity to meet the mother’s parents, they were at the parents’ home in Southern England, they were with Benji in the lounge on the middle level and were not aware her parents had arrived, she came up and said would we like to meet them, they went and met them in the kitchen for 10-15 minutes, they had a very pleasant conversation. She asked them if they liked curries, they said yes and she invited them back to her home, the grandfather said he had driven locally and knew where they were.

They hope they have a huge amount to offer in terms of value for Benji, they love him and care about him, they want him to see both sides of the family, different environments, they have just introduced a son in law into the mix, they have a large extended family. They have just held a big wedding. They have 35-45 immediate family members, her and the paternal grandfather’s siblings and their children that Benji has no knowledge or experience of. He is talking about his Nanny and Grandad, that is not them they were Daddima and Grandad, no one family in a child’s life should be better than the other, they are different, everyone has qualities to bring. Benji has a special relationship with his Nana and Granddad, it is only human that makes them sad, but it was not their life that made him sad, he doted on the paternal grandfather, he knew Punjabi words, it was very sad he has forgotten them, he might have known 400 plus by now, he knew some Swahili, ‘Hakuna Matata’, he knew ‘Pole Pole’ which means slow elephant, that was Grandad who was slow in the park, she was a giraffe, ‘twiga’ which is Swahili for tall and he was the slow cheetah in the park.

She had not contacted the maternal grandmother, when contact stopped in May 2020 the mother had given her mother’s number, she left it a couple of days then called her and asked how they were and said they would like to start video calls and long term see if Benji could spend time with them. She said that is not going to happen, she also set boundaries saying to her your other horrible daughter is still around, she had actually been living away for a year at that point, and that they wouldn’t allow Benji to speak to anyone, after that she didn’t feel it was appropriate to make further contact. It did feel there was change when she moved back to Norfolk. The recent photos of Benji remind her of his dad and grandad, there is a connection there but elements of the mother as well.

Even if she doesn’t understand the medical terms, she understands the concept of splitting as raised by Dr Downs, she works with children every day, when contact stopped he was little he was not presenting as he does now, she is not saying why, it is his reality, he was a different child, every night she thinks of him. He will look in the mirror and see more and more of his father in him. She would never do anything or say anything in front of him or expose him to any risk in respect of his mother, sister, brother, Charlie, maternal grandparents, it would be disrespectful, they have a place in his life. He should be able to share his homes, have two families and equally good times with both, he is a child, he should not be making adult decisions or be asked to choose one or another. They feel they are causing him harm by not resolving the issues in his relationship with them.

In the nurseries they are very used to dealing with separated parents and have been very instrumental in ensuring staff training on it. They work with external agencies, children in the care of the Local Authority attend of all ages, they had a day old child there when the meeting couldn’t be held elsewhere they offered the venue, the staff have domestic abuse training, she doesn’t do it herself as she is not involved at operational level but if the court wanted her to she would. In relation to separated parents they have some where one parent will drop and the other collect, they have to be aware of court orders. If there are safeguarding concerns, they have to fill CPOMS online. They have parents who cannot see each other, it needs careful navigation and they have to be careful not to align themselves with one or the other. They need to comply with Local Authority directives.

Benji is their only grandchild, their daughter recently married, she had a week-long celebration, they had daily functions at their house and hosted hundreds of guests, one day they had a small religious ceremony but other days were partying with music dancing good food and alcohol. They had guests from as far afield as USA Australia Germany India and Kenya. They have a little temple with one idol, Shiva, which the mother bought the father. They would have liked Benji there, it was such a special family occasion, with family and friends from all over the world and all she could see was Benji’s missing face. She had to suck it up, she didn’t want the father and her daughter to be upset because she couldn’t hold it together. He could have been a mini me with his dad and granddad he would have loved it as he was such an outgoing child. All their staff were invited they said it was something they would savour for the rest of their lives as they may not see it again, a big fat Indian wedding. Everyone asked after Benji they expect them to have contact and they want to enjoy him. He has gifts and money waiting for him, she has a memory box waiting for him.

It was devastating to hear that what they send for Benji goes in a cupboard, at every point they are out of his life, it seems there is nothing positive they can do even gifts can’t reach him so he knows he is loved, they send him gifts with the mindset of connection, if the mother says he is working on Volcanos she will write about them, he used to like pebbles and fossils, in the video calls recorded he was very engaged talking about them, she tries to focus on what he is doing currently.

She had read the concessions documents. She had heard the father use the word wretch in his testimony, but she has not heard her husband say it to her son. She can only say what happened when she was there, she wasn’t aware of the father using such words to Leah, she was not present, she was not aware he was speaking to Leah in this way or that he grabbed the mother as per the allegations. It would have had a very negative effect, the father had not done them proud, they don’t condone his behaviour and never have done. She doesn’t doubt the mother’s stated emotions, she was not happy to listen to it, as parents they have been dragged back and forth in this process, none of it sounds acceptable, it does not make her feel proud what her son has done. They are more than disappointed, they are distraught, distraught for their grandson, the father inflicted violence on his wife. The effect on Benji would have been profound. They never witnessed him replicating such behaviour, when they visited after he was born and from May 2017 to January 2020 they spent every minute there with him took him to the park he would play with other children they never experienced that so are very surprised and upset to hear that. The domestic abuse would have been frightening for Benji, made him feel intimidated and insecure. She owns nurseries with her husband, she had specifically chosen not to get childcare qualifications although there is nothing she doesn’t know about children. She is very sad for Benji and the mother, it would burden Benji if he witnessed the abuse and have a profound affect. She was concerned about the impact on him as he grows up. She was concerned to read about his behaviour post separation but he never portrayed any of that when they visited. The last visit in January 2020 was a great weekend. They had come back from Morocco and brought everyone gifts, her husband brought saffron for the mother, there was a photo of them, she brought her 65th birthday cake to share it was a lovely family weekend. The mother cooked for them all. Benji didn’t flinch from the father or anyone else, she was not aware of any issues.

She said to suggest she didn’t want to see what was going on was whitewashing and goes against the instincts of a person like her, she is experienced in childcare, she was Benji’s grandmother, if it happened and she had seen it, she would not have negated it or wanted to not see it. At that stage she was not aware of what was going on, they had a couple of arguments, unfortunately in front of her, but in terms of Benji’s and Leah’s welfare, they had a lovely relationship with them, they would not consciously or subconsciously have ignored it, if aware they would have nipped it in the bud, it did not happen when they were there. If they had known they would have spoken to the mother and then got every agency they could find involved, it was said in court they didn’t want them to separate, it was the first she had heard of that, if it would have benefited them to separate earlier, she would have supported that. She is very upset for all three of them. They became aware of the domestic abuse after they read the bundle when they were made parties, the father had told them some of the things that had gone on, for example the April 2020 incident and the bail conditions. When the mother stopped contact she didn’t tell them any of the incidents, she said to her that the father was her best friend and she loved him, it is not true they knew about the abuse. The father had told them some of it, her health had not been good at the time, her GP said to distance herself, she was aware some serious domestic abuse incidents had taken place. They were shocked to read the documents and told him his behaviour was unacceptable and he should be ashamed of himself. They did ask why he had not told them, no specific reason was given, both were hiding what was going on, she remembers his father telling him had they known they would not have allowed it to continue, they might have needed more intervention than they could provide.

In relation to the alleged incident in 2016 where the mother had said the father hit his sister Amelia neither she or her husband were present, she was not aware of that from her daughter, as far as she was aware all three were loud and had an argument and that was it. They left Ireland immediately and drove to the airport as they had a flight to catch and were leaving anyway. They didn’t speak for 12 months after that, the father would on odd occasions speak to his dad, she was really upset about not seeing Benji and then gradually they started contact again. It was 12 months May to May, the argument was between the siblings in relation to the mother thinking Amelia had slighted Leah and Jake, she had spoken privately to the mother upstairs, they didn’t know her expressed reasons, the father supported his wife and Amelia shouldn’t have drawn those lines. As far as she was aware Amelia didn’t say she didn’t want to meet Leah and Jake, she wanted a bit of time to build the relationship with the mother, both parties felt a certain way, with the benefit of hindsight her daughter’s behaviour was not acceptable.

She disagreed that the father’s anger management issues were learned behaviour, she said his father was a quiet man an introvert who liked to keep his thoughts to himself, but like everyone can get frustrated and angry. The father had been out of the family home a long time, they had a very happy home, he went to university at age 18, she was not an expert in learned behaviour but she doesn’t think he learned it from them.

In relation to the incident for which she gave a statement for the Fact-Finding hearing the father was never arrested, they were outside the home and he came back later. Before he came back she went into the house alone, woke the mother up and spoke to her, asked if that was ok and she said yes, as that is what the Police said before they left, that they were going to ask him to leave and he could come back in the morning. They returned at 6am the time the Police told them and she spoke to the mother alone. She was two levels up, she made him sit at the table in the kitchen, she went up the two flights alone and spoke to the mother and made sure she was aware and comfortable. He was nowhere near her. By this stage they had had several conversation and the mother kindly allowed Ella to come in, they had not seen each other for some time, she asked the mother several times how she wanted to proceed, she said several times she did not want to separate, they would sort it out. It was not all detailed in the statement, lots happened and they talked for hours. They were together, never separated, on that day she did act as a mediator spoke to them both and made sure the mother, Leah and Benji were ok and that the mother was happy for them to go home. She went to see if Leah was ok, she was awake, they were having an argument on her floor, she never said ‘if you knew what he was really like you would run a mile’. This was not an example of her knowing about the domestic abuse and doing nothing. They had gone out to dinner; she had paid for it and was babysitting Benji and Leah. They came back and she heard loud voices, she was initially asleep and possibly still half asleep when she came down. It was a serious incident in that the Police spoke to her, Leah, the mother and father. The Police said to her that the father had been hit on the head with a mobile phone which the mother said was broken, it wasn’t her who made the call. She was petrified she was on her own in Southern England she didn’t know if anything was going to be alleged against her, she was scared which is why she called her husband, as far as she was concerned it was an unusual experience. The mother said she wanted her dad to come and she offered to take her. She spoke to Leah in her room, they had a very close relationship, she said they get loud when they argue but didn’t say more, it was not appropriate to ask, she didn’t say the Police had been called before, she didn’t suggest a pattern. She found the incident serious, she felt she needed her husband to support her and the mother and deal with any issues with the father. The mother always had their support, not only personal support they would be there any time she required her, she doesn’t want to go into the financial support they provided in court, but any support she wanted she had. They did not turn a blind eye.

There could be several explanations as to why Benji was not having a relationship with them, some could be linked to their son’s behaviour, they are not aware of the narrative he has had, he has had no opportunity to hear anything positive about his paternal grandparents, if they were involved in his life they could support him to be a child, to listen to his fears, he may fear they will snatch him, who knows. They have not said the domestic abuse did not happen or condoned his behaviour, they accept their son’s behaviour, of course as grandparents they wish they had been in his life, they could have helped his fears, for example him being snatched, there was never that risk from them.

If the mother’s father described her as cold and disinterested she can’t challenge his perception, she had one meeting with him in Southern England which was cordial and she invited them to her home. She doesn’t think she is a cold person, vocal, she had a conversation with the maternal grandmother and she said as long as Amelia her horrible daughter was around they would not have a relationship with Benji, she did not put it in her statement as she wanted to be forward looking as nothing would be achieved by discussing it. The maternal grandmother did say it and that is the stage contact had stopped.

When the mother asked about whether she was recording the calls she had already recorded the first call since separation on 10 April 2020. She was excited, that is the grandmother she was, she didn’t ask her or discuss it with her. She had recorded Benji’s calls all the time before that. There were no further recordings. In the heat of the moment scenario she had not told the truth. It is not correct in the last call they had they told Benji they wanted to see him in person, she was not always present, it would be one on one with Benji so as to not overwhelm him, the phone would be passed to the father and they would be in a different room. She was not even aware of a conversation about seeing his room, with her the whole call was Benji in his garden with a stick and him saying he was taller than the stick. At that stage no one thought it would be a situation where there would be no contact for so long, the mother was saying she wouldn’t stop contact, if that was in her mind she wasn’t saying that, till then everyday the father had a call sometimes two calls. The mother and her had a cordial relationship, she would ask how she was, Benji would come on it was around bedtime so he would have showered and had wet hair he would tell jokes, there were no issues, she didn’t realise there would be this reaction to any suggestion of face-to-face contact.

She disagreed her marriage was fractious, they had been married 45 years, they have arguments and agree to disagree but no more difficulties than most married couples. In terms of frequency of visits to Benji, a lot of the time she would go on her own to Ireland after he was born. After May 2017 she went a couple of times she went twice in July 2017 and then again in August 2017, sometimes it was more frequently than every two weeks, sometimes it was 6 weeks or 8 weeks. She was besotted with Benji, she would have walked there if she could, if the mother said she could see Benji she would go. After August 2017 it was every other month.

She was asked about the start of the parents’ relationship, she said they weren’t unhappy with the mother they were unhappy with the way the father went into his relationship with her and broke off his engagement. They didn’t know the mother, all they knew is they worked together, the father broke his engagement, they were hugely shocked by the whole situation, he was going in one direction and then a compete stop. They knew the mother was married, they were subsequently told she had two children, they knew she was English, they found out she was part Irish subsequently when they visited, but the fact she wasn’t Hindu didn’t matter to them. They didn’t approve, the issue was the manner in which the father broke off his engagement, in a short period, weeks, she doesn’t even know when they met, the father decided he wanted to marry the girl he was engaged to and then he changed his mind and didn’t go through with it. Her husband did send a solicitor’s letter about the repayment of a loan, it was unconnected to the mother, it was about expressing disappointment in the father’s behaviour that he should grow up and take responsibility for his actions.

She was not aware at the time the mother wanted to postpone the wedding; the father would have justified in his mind that they were not supportive but equally they felt justified in their views. The mother wasn’t blamed, the difficulty was after he broke off his engagement, he left them to manage the fallout, he was living his life in Ireland and they dealt with all the issues. At some stage he rang his father and said the mother was moving into his apartment, the paternal grandfather said ok, it was his life and he didn’t need their permission, they gave their blessing.

They had invited her back to their home before the wedding and met her twice in Ireland before that. They would have had an Indian wedding in their home, his maternal uncle rang him and offered help and support, they told him to come home and they would arrange the wedding. Then arguments began in terms of who was invited then uninvited, there was all the drama of the engagement and then they had people ringing asking what was going on. They couldn’t attend the wedding in all the circumstances.

She was asked about what Dr Van Velsen described as ‘flashpoints’, she said the father can get frustrated, he is very articulate, she is more familiar with him getting his point across, if he gets too vociferous she will say right you have had your say, calm down, but he has not had flashpoints with her. She was asked about the father’s therapist’s description of blow ups in the family, she said she didn’t know what blow ups were. They are a passionate articulate family where everyone has an opinion, there are many loud discussions, if you start a political conversation it can be argumentative, but these are not blow ups. She couldn’t comment on whether they occurred in the marital relationship, other than the argument in August 2017, she had not seen anything. She doesn’t know how when or why that started she just heard loud voices she came down she asked the father what was going on, the mother was loud as well, she told him to go downstairs as Benji was asleep. She doesn’t think it was a blow up although she doesn’t know what one was. They were both loud. She cannot say it was linked to anything in her family. The family argument in 2016 to an extent could be characterised as a blow up. It affected her ability to see Benji, people can always do better, she has always wished she had had not missed Benji in her life for a year. She disagreed it was a family characteristic to bottle things up and then have an outburst.

She was taken back to the start of the parent’s relationship, she said as far as she was aware both sides were trying to heal the rift, the first few months things were difficult but not 12-18 months. It would have been isolating for the mother but equally for them as they were so far away and couldn’t sit down and talk or see each other. The father rang his dad and said they were moving in together, at that point they moved forward, they were both in a new relationship they gave their blessing. She has never sworn at the mother to her or about her and certainly never about the children, that would in her eyes not be acceptable. She never spoke to her on the phone when she was in Ireland, the first two visits to Ireland when they met her were perfectly calm and pleasant, they had all moved on, the same in the visits to Ireland after Benji was born. Recollections vary but she was sad to read she didn’t trust her and yet asked her to babysit, so she left Leah there, that is not her recollection. She loved her, she was immensely proud of her, she learned to cook Indian food without her say so or help, the first time she went she was pleasantly surprised, she had made paneer and fresh hot naans, she can’t say how lovely and proud they were, that is how they got on.

It was suggested they had a very difficult relationship and she was rewriting history, she said she wished she could rewrite history, all she can do is say her recall of every visit and what happened between the mother and them. After the wedding she went to Ireland on her own before Benji was born, they had to get over the awkwardness of not going to the wedding but it was a good weekend, she looked after the mother as she was heavily pregnant, she cooked and cleaned and batch cooked, the mother sat on the stool at the kitchen counter and said she didn’t need to do that, they had good banter and both enjoyed cooking. Once they were in Southern England sometimes, she would go on her own or with the paternal grandfather or Ella. She was not aware of what was happening behind the scenes. It is insidious to say she consciously or unconsciously overlooked abuse. They spent hours at the dinner table laughing and talking the mother and paternal grandfather would share white wine, the father drank a different type, she didn’t drink. Those are the memories she has, she watched the programmes they wanted to watch, the mother and Leah liked Eastenders she didn’t, but before each time they went she would watch it 3 or 4 times so they would have something in common, there was a particular character Leah liked so she would follow the storyline to have something in common with Leah that is her recall of the times spent together. During the day they were busy with Benji, she would put him to bed while the mother went downstairs and cooked, she would cook homemade favourites. It will be for the court decide if she doesn’t recognise her descriptions.

It was again suggested she did not want to see what was in front of her and in her mind had created something different, she said they were only there when they were invited by the mother and father, they never rocked up on their own, the scenario she has described is what happened, she would follow the exact routine she was told when she was left with Benji and the same with Leah. She denied again that she had ever used language such as bastard or arsehole or been present when such language was used. She had never called the mother a white whore, that she had bastard children or was a bitch. It is not language she would use. She can only ask why the mother would say that. She has never said it to her or about her. Benji has never heard any raised voices or bad words from her, it never happened, not while the mother was pregnant, or once he was born. Benji has never been in the room or heard loud voices or bad words. The 2016 argument was in the street, as far as she was aware Benji was in his pushchair, but she wasn’t there.

It was suggested that the mother had felt constantly abused pressurised and rejected by them and she was asked if she wanted to apologise, she said she had apologised constantly for how the father had behaved, she had taken responsibility for everything put to her, for how they brought him up, how they behaved, but her personal behaviour to the mother is evident from the messages and the same for Ella, she offered the mother comfort in 2017 even if she may not feel it, she left her in the home that day after making sure she wanted the father back in, how many times can she apologise to make it better, if it would make the mother better she is not too proud to apologise.

The paternal grandmother gave her statement as part of the Fact Finding it was her point of view, she has not looked at it since, the fact is after a full month of contact with Benji, who was happy engaged super excited to speak to them, they were told Benji did not want to speak to them. Alienation was just a word used, nothing happened on 7 May 2020 when he was discussing the height of his stick, there was nothing in his presentation or that upset him to the extent of not wanting to speak to them. They are not here to support the father’s application, they are the grandparents, they have separate applications, solicitors and barristers. She is not an expert on parental alienation it is for the judge to decide. They would have followed legal advice, she doesn’t know what documents they had in July 2023 when they made their application. The bundle was tough reading, she has seen the work done by Action for Children and other therapists, they have no idea the narrative the agencies were given, it was distressing reading some of the work done involving them before he was born and the parents were married.

She was asked if she supported the transfer of residence, she explained she was aware of the father’s position and what had been said over the last few days, she was aware of the impact on Benji, her focus was on Benji, the father and his counsel do their best, she and her counsel will do their best for Benji’s welfare. It was never her intention to cause Benji any harm, she doesn’t know what the future holds, it is for the Judge, the mother accepted yesterday that Benji loved them and they loved him and yet he is in a position where he feels it is ok to call his grandparents’ stupid, if that is not hurtful to read what is.

There has been no contact for 4.5 years, they will be guided by the court and Guardian, they will go at whatever pace is acceptable. It is not their decision whether to meet him with no preparation, the experts are better placed to show them the way. Her difficulty is the mother and her haven’t spoken, she has apologised to her in court for whatever she sees as wrongs done, she is not proud, she was happy to do it, there is no one she needs to work with more with than the mother, but by her own evidence she would find it very difficult to promote contact. She feels we have not been very nice, we could all reflect and say we tried to support them, made gestures of gifts went shopping, tried to support her having a little child while working full time, she had enjoyed a good relationship with Leah, yet in her impact statement she said she felt isolated, she met Leah in her sixties, she was blessed with Benji at 60, it was the best Christmas and Birthday present ever, when they met in Southern England Leah was 14 she didn’t want to be in the house looking after a 2 year old and spying on them, she doesn’t know how much she felt isolated or had not wanted to be left looking after two doddery old people. All of them have to reflect on the history and see what they can do to go forward. She would be happy to have a conversation with the mother today, she would need to seek advice from counsel and be guided by the judge. She said she was very very pleased to hear Benji would consider a video call with them, they would work with Professionals and do whatever it takes to have sustained contact and would abide by court orders.

She was taken to where the mother told the Police they now have quite a good relationship, that was what she had been saying, they had a very good relationship and rapport, they talked about everything, that is her memory of her relationship with the mother. The mother said to her in an email she would ‘prefer to keep private’ the issues, she was a very private person, so is her husband, different to her. She respected that, if she didn’t want to talk about things she was not in a position to do so. She felt when she had the responsibility to make the calls when the father was on bail that made the mother resent her as she was having to field the calls and she had wanted to speak to him at that stage. After the incident in August 2017 with the police the paternal grandfather travelled through the night and stayed in the carpark, between 6-7am the Police said they could go back in, she spoke to the mother, they didn’t come in then, the mother said it was ok for the paternal grandfather to come in, he said to the mother she was no different to him than his daughters, she had the biggest smile on her face and said it was the loveliest thing she had heard and was all she wanted.

I found the paternal grandmother to be a very impressive witness. I have no doubt the grandparents’ application is an entirely genuine one, motivated by their love for and devotion to their only grandchild. I accept the delay in them joining the proceedings was not due to a lack of interest on their part, but simply because they hoped that Benji would re-establish contact with his father and they would be able to see him as a natural extension of that. I reject it was motivated by any intent or desire to gang up on the mother as she has suggested. She said in her statement ‘We love and miss him every moment of our lives. He was a big part of our lives and now we just have a vacuum and pain where his happy beautiful expressive face used to be.’ I found her evidence to be both very moving and very genuine as she described just how important Benji is to her and her husband, how he is in their thoughts at all times and how they feel his absence in everything they do.

She was subject to very intense and at times quite derogatory cross examination, clearly on the instructions of the mother, she was accused amongst other things of being aware of the domestic abuse, of deliberately ignoring it or failing to see it, of minimising its impact, of attempting to rewrite history, of being racially abusive to the mother and her children, that her own marriage was problematic, that the father’s behaviour was either a product of his upbringing or was typical of what goes on in her family and that she had no relationship with Benji. At one point she was invited to apologise to the mother in court for her alleged behaviour, which to her great credit she did, and then minutes later she was invited to meet her that day for a conversation. She remained, despite hours of cross-examination and at times very unpleasant insinuations, calm, dignified and endlessly compassionate towards the mother throughout.

I am satisfied she was an honest witness. I say that in full recognition of the fact she was not honest with the mother in April 2020 about having made a video recording on Benji during the first video contact post separation. She admitted it readily when asked. I accept that she had previously recorded him without issue and did so on this occasion without malice or intent, but when asked, in the heat of the moment, did not tell the truth for fear the contact would stop and as it turned out she had good reason to be concerned. As with the mother I remind myself of R v Lucas, however in relation to the grandmother I do not consider she is either a generally dishonest person or has otherwise lied to the court, not only is there independent contemporaneous evidence in the bundle to support much of what she has said about their past relationship, the detail she gave to many of her explanations brought scenarios alive in such a way I accept they are true accounts.

She accepted without reservation that the father’s behaviour was entirely unacceptable and the negative impact that had had on the mother, Leah and Benji and expressed sorrow and compassion that they had had to endure such experiences. She was at no time critical or negative about the mother, despite the fact she was continually told that she was in effect lying about what she was saying about their past relationship and that ‘the mother doesn’t recognise your description’ and had ‘felt constantly abused pressured and rejected’ by her and her husband.

She was upfront and honest that the family were less than pleased when the parties started their relationship, and the manner in which it was done, and specifically the fact their son had left them to deal with the aftermath, but was very clear it was never taken out on the mother by way of racial abuse or otherwise. I accept her account entirely. I also believed her when she explained how much they loved the mother and how proud of her they were.

She was the only witness who tried not to dwell on the past, despite most of the questioning being directed to it, but was very much focused on trying to find a way to move matters forward and that this case was about Benji and not the adults. As with the other parties, I had the opportunity to observe her throughout the hearing, at no time did her attention stray from the evidence being given, she was entirely focused on listening to what was being said. It was also evident from the instructions she gave her counsel in how to deal with matters, that this was about re-establishing a relationship with Benji and not point scoring in anyway. She was entirely realistic about the fact she needed to rebuild her relationship with the mother to be able to have a relationship with her grandson and I have little doubt will do whatever is necessary to make that happen. I also have complete confidence the paternal grandparents will adhere to any orders the court makes going forward and would never denigrate the mother or the maternal family, not only because they are not those kind of people, but also because they recognise how damaging that would be for Benji.

In my judgement the paternal grandparents have a huge amount to offer Benji. They are highly intelligent professional people, they are multi-lingual, well-travelled and have a diverse amount of knowledge and experiences to share with him. They also have a vast amount of experience with children, having run nurseries and clearly take pride in supporting the development of children, I noted the sadness with which she explained she was entrusted with the care of other people’s children but is not allowed to see her own grandson. I acknowledge the irony in that.

She filed position statements dated 10 September 2021, 22 February 2022, 8 July 2022, 9 September 2022, 28 October 2022, 30 May 2023, 20 July 2023 and 25 June 2024 along with a final analysis dated 17 September 2024 in which she made no recommendations but indicted she wished to hear the evidence.

In her live evidence she said she had received an email from school which said Benji was registered at school with his full name. She had received an email from the health visitor about the instruction of another therapist which was later abandoned by the parties out of the blue, she had seen she was the Lead in the Family Support Programme, she had forwarded it to the child’s solicitor and heard no more. She had discussions with the father about his partner, she would not say in depth, she was aware of her name, they spent weekends together but were not living together albeit he hoped they may in the future, when she asked about his support network if Benji was living with him he said his parents and sisters. He had felt anxious about raising the issue of his partner and that it would open him up to criticism.

Her knowledge of Dr Downs was limited to a joint instruction in a previous case relating to Honour Based Violence and at the time those issues were raised in this case. She had never met her, nor seen her give evidence previously and had no knowledge of any training she provides or connections to Cafcass. She had read the documents highlighted by counsel, she was aware of the new Cafcass policy on domestic violence, it had been launched during the Cafcass Practice Week and had been talked about a lot, it was a very positive shift forward. She had read the documents on alienating behaviours, it was part of the Child Impact Analysis Framework, it was mandatory to complete it, it would only be used if there were no other risk factors to explain a child’s resistance. She had refreshed her knowledge of PD12J. She had set out in her final analysis the issues for the court to determine and potential orders to make. It was unusual she had made no recommendation, it was a measure of the complexity, the fact it had been going on so long, the difficult start in respect of the previous Cafcass officer. She has listened to evidence but still thinks it is difficult to make any recommendations, hearing the adult dynamics and how those relationships impact Benji and going forward, and findings have been made they are victims of domestic abuse, and any recommendation would have to bear that in mind.

She had been a Guardian for 13 years; she didn’t know how it had become such an exceptional case as the issues involved are dealt with on a regular basis. It is very difficult to give a firm recommendation given the issues the judge has to determine, and she can’t recommend anything until the judge has adjudicated on them. She has tried to assist on the impact on Benji were there to be a change of residence, it is a decision for the judge, she was mindful of the impact it would have, the mother had set it out clearly.

It was the view of Dr Downs that Benji was suffering significant harm, she was aware it was put to her that splitting did not have to be due to alienating behaviours, whatever the reason the risk is he is being harmed. She was aware Dr Downs’ report was contentious for some, the simpler point was if he sees one side as good and the other as not, it couldn’t be good for him on any measure particularly when you add in his heritage. It is a simple point compared to some things that have been said and it resonated as did the impact on him. Benji is happy with his mum and stepdad but the links with the paternal family are becoming more and more tenuous, the mother accepted she can’t help him with language.

It was the court’s decision to appoint a Guardian and she would regularly ask to be guided by experts. She is a social worker not an expert, she would defer to the psychologist and psychiatrist and their expertise. She didn’t attend the Fact-Finding hearing but she received careful notes and spoke to counsel of the time and was satisfied by the facts that were established. There was a factual matrix, and it was the time to look to move forward for Benji.

The Action for Children work was regrettable, she doesn’t blame the mother for seeking help for her Leah and Benji the issue is those professionals have a role and responsibility to help those abused domestically but it was not balanced by what is going on in court, what the other parent is saying, their rights and the findings of the court. The work has caused difficulties. The email from the Health Visitor is a good example, it came from a good place to help the mother but it wasn’t running alongside what was happening in court. There was a blurring of boundaries, there has been references to ‘their case’ which is understandable from their point of view. The therapists were the same, they were critical of Dr Downs, they were part of the court process in a way and the others were support services. It was not the court’s plan they would write to the court or that the mother’s solicitors would write to them, it was all supposed to go through Dr Van Velsen, that was very clear when they were appointed.

She can see why there would be concerns about a therapeutic process going forward, professionals could be very clear and boundaried, the contact centre were able to be boundaried, the working relationships were positive albeit they didn’t achieve the outcome. They said in July 2022 they couldn’t do anything to move it forward. Dr Downs was very clear how the matter should progress and there should be no preparation work, she found that difficult in light of where we are now and Benji’s experiences, she would not be comfortable arranging something where he was ambushed. The contact centre did do preparation work, the mother feels it showed she tried.

Benji has been significantly harmed emotionally by the domestic abuse and if the court finds alienating behaviour absolutely emotionally abused by that.

She has listened to what was said about the paternal grandparents and that relationship. She had felt positive after meeting them but the mother has a different narrative that there may have been emotional harm caused as a result of that relationship, even so, she is not sure there should be no relationship with any member of his paternal family. She was concerned about the evidence that in April 2020 contact was positive and the mother’s message saying she was not going to stop contact, after that Benji lost all contact with the paternal family, she is not saying the mother intentionally did it, but it has been catastrophic his failure to maintain links with the paternal family. The move to Norfolk impacted the family time and had a big impact on Benji.

She has never spoken to the mother about her parents, they have been called by her in distress, they were aware of what had happened to their grandchildren, perhaps the need to protect was their priority, it did not sound like a positive telephone call in May 2020 between the grandparents. Benji has never said to her he wants to see his father, he sees Charlie as his dad. Benji wrote a letter to his father saying he had a new nicer daddy and the mother was concerned Benji was calling him dad.

The Action for Children work had been done by the time she saw Benji, she had some concerns about the background to it, the narrative in the storybook is written to a child and Benji has drawn on it, it talks about events before he was born, for example the mother was excited to be expecting Benji the father did not talk, it does not help him. Benji needs to know what happened and why he is not seeing his dad, but it has to be done with extreme care. Here there were proceedings and the narrative had not yet been established, it needs to be honest but also find positives on both sides of the family, she is not sure that was done here. It was not connected to court or to the facilitation of contact, he was the perpetrator of domestic abuse and they were there to ease the worries of Benji, it was done from the best of intentions but ill advised.

It is a worry, he went from having a good relationship with the father and paternal family to the way he presented to her in August 2024, it is a worry it is from what he has been told, she is not suggesting the mother has done it intentionally, the families are involved in proceedings, things are said at home, there has been upset, it been going on for a long time, it has impacted where he lives, the Re W was about whether he should have a voice, he is bright boy, very vigilant and protective of his mum, he has picked up a lot of what has gone on.

If there were to be contact just with the paternal grandparents it would need to be thought about carefully, as he sees them as a unit with his father, he doesn’t trust them to be on his side, any arrangements have to be very clear what the plan is going forward, if the plan is to see his father it needs to say it, if he forms a relationship with the grandparents he can’t just be brought in. She has no doubt they would adhere to anything the court ordered the evidence given in court chimed with what she had been told. She has no doubt they had a good relationship with Benji. There would have been influence whether intentional or not, to go from that to how he was with her recently, she was struck how different Benji was with her, he was very angry, rude, not frightened in the room talking to her about his family, upset, frustrated, angry he had been brought to the office in his school holidays, it was not a very pleasant afternoon. He is articulate but his language suggested an adult way of speaking. He has lived this the last 3-4 years, for example the issue of re-opening the Fact-Finding, the Re W application, she cannot imagine there have not been discussions in Benji’s earshot whether intentional or not. These were not applications she supported. She accepted what Dr Van Velsen said about the level of risk posed by the father.

If the paternal grandparents established a relationship with Benji it could be a bridge to the father if the court retained involvement, potentially in the future, the worry would be to go down that route too soon or at all, it would compound that the paternal grandparents had not got his best interests at heart, therefore we need to be careful but she is not ruling it out.

A suspended residence order would be a matter for the judge. The mother is terrified by the thought of a transfer of residence, she is very aware of the impact on her and Benji, we have to look at what is right for Benji now, it can’t be used to say to the mother you do it or else although the judge may feel that is necessary, we need to look at the impact on Benji of not living with his mother or going to his school, we can’t rule it out but equally the impact can’t be ruled out, the father feels he understands the impact but she is not sure he has, it is an application he made reluctantly and he has made it clear it is not what he wants.

She is not sure the Our Family Wizard is over forever, it was a very difficult means of communication, the frequency was with the therapy in mind, the three times a week impacted her, the father was desperate for information.

Benji is not Gillick competent he needs his parents to make decisions for him. The proceedings have had twists turns hurdles one step forward and two steps back. She has to bring it back to Benji, there is a real worry for his emotional wellbeing if he has no contact with the paternal family, he is happy and thriving at the moment, but one can only imagine what life will be like for him when he is older if he has no contact with his Indian family. The real worry for her is him seeing one side of his DNA as bad, the mother says she talks to him about looking like his father, both wearing glasses, but he has no memory of it. In terms of his genuine wishes and feelings it is very difficult to say due to the concerns raised by the father, he will have memories of his father hurting his mother and Leah but what else is very difficult to say. She is not sure he is able to talk about his positive memories, the last time she saw him the grandparents had raised the issue of fossils but he didn’t want to know. It was really worrying. She had read in the papers he was negative about his paternal grandparents but she had not expected him to be so negative. The issue of the presents sent by them being unopened in the cupboard is very unusual she can’t remember it ever happening in another case.

She was aware of the guidance in PD12J and the alienation tool kit and accepted that refusal can be reasonable and justified. She had not used the toolkit, if she had been completing a section 7 report she may have, but she came in as Guardian at a different time. The new Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy came out during Practice Week. As far as she is aware PD12J does not classify parental alienation as domestic abuse. She accepted a child’s welfare must be assessed in light of their lived experiences and domestic abuse must not be dismissed as historical as it can minimise or dismiss the gravity. Dr Van Velsen’s report put their relationship into context in terms of the difficulties from the start. The court proceedings have not been easy for anyone. She has seen her upset at the prospect of a change in residence. Benji is articulate and confident, he has been so since the first time she met him supported by the mother. He is thriving at school. He used adult language with her. It is difficult to say if it was unusual, the language he used the last time she saw him was more unusual than before, she put it down to what had been going on in the home, the last time she had seen him was May 2023. He was not anxious when she spoke to him, he was upset he had to speak to her again as his views had not changed. He was angry and frustrated, the last time she saw him was the first time she had spoken to him about the paternal grandparents. She is aware parental alienation allegations can be used as a weapon.

Dr Downs did assess him when he was 6 and now he is 9 he has had all this time to have a balanced normal life with his mother as he gets older things not be in his mother’s hands, court has been going on, he is getting older, time has elapsed he is a different boy. She had heard the disagreement as to whether Dr Downs had the concessions document when she completed her first report, they were not set out in the report which Dr Van Velsen said was good practice, she knows the document was sent to her three times, she said she had it, with hindsight it was a shame it wasn’t set out as it doesn’t reassure the mother she put weight on the domestic abuse even if she did. It was not for her to say if Dr Downs had minimised the domestic abuse. She accepted splitting can be caused by domestic abuse and in hindsight that should have been highlighted in the report along with the impact of the domestic abuse on the mother and Niam. They are victims under the Act. The concerns have been raised, it is a matter for the court to decide what weight to put on her report.

The father has never been angry with her and they have dealt with difficult topics, he has been upset and frustrated with the process but not angry in manner. He has had no outbursts with her. Her discussion at para 61 of her final analysis with the father, he came across as frustrated, he felt he had no say for his son, he had very little information that he knows he is entitled to, he felt she had all the cards. A sense of entitlement in the Our Family Wizard came across in his evidence.

The mother has raised the issues at para 42 of the final analysis with her throughout, the difficulty is Benji needs her to be both of those things, it is not a criticism, if anyone can reassure him it is the mother, she also fears she will do the wrong thing and be accused. She is usually tearful, upset and feels she is doing her best. She has done what she thinks she can do, she could reassure him, she asks advice about things she ought to have done herself, for example the paternal grandparents are not linked to the father, it is not complicated.

If the court ordered contact with the father, Benji will remember the domestic abuse, he did suffer trauma, he is likely to know the extent of the findings as he gets older, a child does have a right not to have a relationship with an abuser but it is a careful balance, age, wishes and feelings, the impact of having such a relationship, some children shouldn’t but for others it can be helpful and they can move on and have a relationship, such a relationship could have an impact in later life but it depends on what happens in that relationship if they establish a relationship, the father apologises and they build a positive relationship if could ameliorate the harm and balance what happened to him. She does not minimise the impact of the domestic abuse. He could feel no one was listening to him including his mother and it could potentially be very frightening.

A transfer of residence would have to be done in an unplanned way, the father felt it was a last resort, his view was the harm would be short term and things would get better for Benji, from Benji’s point of view that may be too simplistic, it would be very very difficult for Benji. The father in his evidence clarified the impact but he didn’t really set out what it would feel like for Benji. It would be very traumatic for him, the issue is not having contact with the paternal family. Any suspended order for a transfer of residence is a matter for the court.

She didn’t think the paternal grandparents intended to underplay the domestic abuse, their view at the time was the relationship would continue, they are a family unit with the father, he lives with them but that is going to change, they are very supportive, they came to Norfolk with him for his contact, but when she spoke to them Benji was clearly their priority and that came across in their evidence.

The mother did propose a video call and was trying to think of a way forward, her view was without knowing the decision around the father any discussion with Benji would be difficult as she doesn’t want to give Benji the impression of one thing and things happen differently. We need to look at who is having contact we don’t want him to feel the grandparents have done what he is worried about, it can’t be set up without clear boundaries. They can be separated, the mother had advice from her and started the conversation that daddy does not live with them and the grandparents are not on his side, it has to be truthful.

She has not commented on every proposal until the judge has decided who is to have contact. Given where we are now if would not be comfortable for her if he were just taken to a venue and presented with his grandparents, maybe he would be fine but she thinks there would be questions as to why his mother didn’t tell him, it would be setting the grandparents up for a difficult situation, they would do their best to manage it but she has some concerns about that approach. There would need to be professionals present to oversee it and assess the impact. She can’t say it couldn’t be done without preparation, that was Dr Downs’ advice, if he were younger and not so aware but given the conversations he might question why he has not been listened to. Overnights and holidays are a long way off. She struggles how to move paternal grandparents’ contact on without knowing what will happen with father’s contact, to progress the grandparents contact there needs to be clear boundaries, if he is seeing his grandparents but not his father he needs to know. If there is contact with all three adults we need to think how it will happen. It needs a lot of thought, professional intervention, guidance and assistance. We need to avoid coming back to court. Any section 91(14) order is a matter for the court.

She agreed she was the only professional who had spoken to the paternal grandparents, the grandmother was incredibly nervous, she was worried what she would think of her, but she was struck by her warmth and the distress she felt for her grandson. It came across that he means everything to them. She can’t make a recommendation but was very positive about them and what they could bring to his life, the evidence was they had a good relationship with Benji, there may have been difficulties in the family but they placed Benji at the heart of their evidence. Her evidence was the only one able to say let’s look forward. It was a genuine application. Some of the memories she shared brought to life what a good relationship they had. She did describe contact with them as a middle ground. The mother does see the situation as sides she said that in her evidence. Dr Downs did say the paternal grandparents had been triangulated in as bad. Dr Van Velsen did say for mother the maternal family is the only family and she agrees with that. The mother’s proposal before speaking to her was for the paternal grandparents application to be stayed. She did ask her to complete Safeguarding checks on them only a few weeks before but the court had made it clear it was not necessary. Benji does mirror the mothers’ language. Benji does use adult language, she picked up on that especially the last time she met him, there was a real difference between May 2023 and August 2024. Dr Downs did refer to adultification. It was unusual for a 9 year old to be using that language. Dr Van Velsen did say it was unrealistic her negative feelings towards the father would not be transferred to Benji. It would be very difficult in any home, there are the court proceedings, the application to reopen the fact-finding, the Re W application, he is a vigilant little boy, he will have picked up on it.

The Action for Children work did include the paternal grandparents, he had a worry book at home the words and pictures work was kept at school, she has seen evidence arrangements were made for someone to share it with him, the way it was written was for a child, the work was aimed at a child, she can’t imagine it was done and not shared. If it was information for professionals from the mother it could have been sent in an email. It did create a negative image of them. When Dr Downs showed him photographs of them it did suggest they had a strong relationship, she described seeing the real little boy, he was relaxed and happy. The contact centre did show him them 4 months later and they had the same view. She was very worried about his presentation in August 2024, the mother had said he was not keen to see her so she had thought he would be reluctant, but he was upset angry and forthright, they had 15 minutes on their own then she brought the mother in, he carried on for a while being angry then more positive talking about his birthday. It was very worrying and uncomfortable. It was the day after meeting the grandparents, it felt very difficult after a positive meeting with the grandparents and seeing some way of moving forward, to then hear him talking like that. The things the mother asked advice about telling him in relation to the grandparents are things she should have been telling him, she was aware she worried about doing the wrong thing, but it was perfectly sensible advice, they are not responsible for things the father did. The paternal grandmother was very frank about how disappointed she was in her own son. He has not opened any of the gifts sent since July 2023. She doesn’t know what he has been told up until August 2024, she did say in the Fact-Finding the paternal grandparents were of no benefit to Benji, it does not seem like he has been supported to think of them in a positive way. He does need a link to his paternal family. She had no concerns they would not follow court orders, were they given the opportunity to see him after so long, they would not jeopardise it.

She has heard the evidence and the differences in opinion about the history and lived experiences, the mother has concerns about paternal grandparents even today, she is not sure the mother could or is the right person to supervise contact. She is a victim of domestic abuse and we have to be careful to set a victim of domestic abuse to manage contact, she worries about the fallout and the different takes on what is said. She wonders if the contact centre can be tried again, it didn’t achieve what it set out to do and there may be negative thoughts but he may have positive thoughts about the contact supervisors. It would not have to be there it could be in the community the family have the resources to finance it. The mother has suggested an ISW. It has not worked so far having no preparation, if Benji went and had a good time with his grandparents then he has to go home and may worry what his mum will think and will say he has not enjoyed it. The grandparents want guidance and professional oversight is the way forward. It needs clear timescales and it can’t be left to drift. When the court has made its decision, the future role of the court can be considered as it may need continuing oversight.

She is an experienced and respected Guardian well known to the court. She is known for her fair and balanced approach and her focus on the interests of the child. Her role in this case has been far from easy in the sense she entered the case following the exit of the previous Cafcass officer whose work had been criticised and in circumstances where Benji had already had numerous interventions and been spoken to by a raft of professionals. She has purposefully taken a ‘soft touch’ approach and limited the occasions she has seen Benji and indeed the parties.

She has been the focus of much criticism from the mother, in particular over the course of the last few months, in terms of her role in the fact-finding hearing and within this hearing it has been alleged she and the child’s solicitor specifically instructed Dr Downs following what ‘appears to be a pattern of Cafcass Guardians instructing psychologists who are parental alienation proponents to opine on contested concepts such as parental alienation in case where there are findings of domestic abuse.’ I have already rejected any suggestion Dr Downs was a ‘parental alienation proponent’ or that she was did opine on parental alienation, but I accept entirely what the Guardian told me she had never met Dr Downs, she had never before seen her give evidence and her knowledge was limited to one previous case which had involved Honour Based Violence, and as that had been an allegation at the time of her instruction, that was why she was approached. It was abundantly clear to me the Guardian had never tried to push any agenda here, and has gone out of her way to be even handed to the parties, and has made no judgements as to what has happened and why.

Her final analysis and live evidence showed her detailed understanding of the case, the personalities and the issues, she has been involved for three years, in those circumstances it was perhaps surprising she felt unable to make any recommendations, particularly after having listened to the evidence for 9 days. Whilst I appreciate the court has factual findings to make which complicate such a process it would have been helpful for the parties, who had all looked to her for guidance, particularly the paternal grandparents, had she been able to do so, even if on the basis of alternate findings and/or decisions of the court. It is also leaves the court in a difficult position, in circumstances where she is clear there needs to be ‘a lot of thought, professional intervention guidance and assistance’ that she has not been able to provide social work guidance as to the possible options. I hope going forward she will feel able to take a more hands on approach in terms of arrangements for Benji in pursuance of the orders I intend to make.

The court will need to holistically consider, on a chronological basis, the parties’ behaviour, the relationship between the parties, their respective relationships with Benji, and how and why these have changed over the years to be able to determine the factual issues in the case, namely;

In light of my decisions on those factual matters, I must then go on to consider what orders to make in the best interests of Benji, having considered the matters set out in the welfare checklist, in the light of the Schedule of Findings and Concessions, and as guided by PD12J. The matters the court must specifically determine are where Benji should live, what contact he should have with the other parent, what contact he should have with his paternal grandparents, both direct and indirect, and whether there should any restriction on future court applications.

A huge amount of time has been spent in this hearing on how the parties met and the reactions of the wider family. I do not intend to dwell on that at any length. I have no doubt the parties met through work and they began a relationship when the father was engaged to someone else and the mother was married and not separated from her husband. In due course the father broke off his engagement and the mother separated from her husband, who initially moved out leaving her living with Leah and Jake. I accept what the father told me about the sequence of events in his live evidence and also that his family were less than impressed with his behaviour. On any view it appears he simply left his parents to deal with the financial and familial fallout in circumstances where he had not dealt with things in accordance with cultural protocol. It is to his credit he is now able to see how irresponsible and unfair his behaviour was. I also have no doubt his parents and sisters were very upset, not just by his poor judgement, but by the fact they were left clean up his mess. I have no doubt there were difficult conversations and that harsh words were said, as the father explained to all the professionals in the case and to the court.

I do not however accept that these were directed towards the mother. I have no doubt they were concerned as to her situation, namely the fact she was still married, which seems to me a perfectly normal parental reaction, but I do not accept they were concerned about either the colour of her skin or her religion. My impression of the paternal grandmother is that she is warm and welcoming individual, from what she said in her evidence she has friends across cultures and continents and I was particularly struck by her description of the wedding they have recently hosted with friends and family coming from all over the world, and that they also invited the staff from their nurseries, who are also from a wide range of cultures, to enjoy ‘a big fatIndian wedding’. The mother has variously alleged they called her a ‘white whore’ ‘a white devil’ a ‘bitch’ and as having ‘bastard children’. As was put on behalf of the paternal grandparents her account of who said this and to whom has been at least inconsistent. She says it was said to the father, ‘His family would yell at him telling him I was a white whore, the white devil and a bitch.’ Later in the same statement she says it was said directly, ‘Unfortunately the father’s family (his parents and sisters) were approaching our house and his father and sister started yelling at me and telling me I was a joke. They called me a white whore with bastard children.’ She told the Local Authority, ‘The father’s family called the mother a white whore until she gave birth to Benji when she was more accepted’ which rather contradicts what she said, as she was saying Benji was himself present on that occasion. She said in her live evidence that the father had told her they were saying these things. She told His Honour Judge Shaw in the fact-finding hearing that she was called these names ‘as I overheard white whore withbastardchildren and a white devil’ and confirmed that his mother and older sister said it on the telephone to the father. The father was very clear this never happened, he told the court, ‘he had never heard them comment on the colour of her skin or be racist,’ and whilst harsh words may have been said to and about him, they never included the mother who they hadn’t even met at this point. The paternal grandmother said, ‘I have nothing but love and respect for her and have never sworn about her or to her.’ She repeated that in evidence. The father and paternal grandmother have both been consistent about that. The mother’s allegations have been inconsistent and contradictory, and I note were first made to the Local Authority at the point she had separated from the father and in the context of a report where culture was being raised alongside concerns about snatching and Honour Based Violence. In my judgement, having heard at length from the paternal grandmother, I do not consider her to be either racist or abusive and I simply do not accept she used such language to or about the mother, and certainly not about the children, with the alleged insult ‘bastard children’ being factual incorrect in any event.

By the time the parties moved in together there was a change in the attitude of the paternal grandparents and I am satisfied they did indeed give the couple their blessing. The mother said they only met her when she was pregnant, ‘ The paternal grandparents visited me for the first time when I was pregnant ..shortly after they found out we were having a boy. Theyhad refused to see me at all prior to that.’ Such an assertion was clearly not true, the paternal grandfather had travelled to Ireland hoping to meet the mother in 2013 but she had refused, but they had, as a couple, visited the parents twice prior to the wedding. The mother herself said that in her first statement ‘They did however come to our house for dinner in the summer of 2014 and I found them incredibly intimidating’ and told the court they had dinner twice before the marriage, so it is very difficult to understand why she was trying to promote a different narrative in her later statement. The paternal grandmother said they visited twice in 2014, ‘We had an enjoyable meal that the mother had kindly cooked for us. That meeting ‘broke the ice’’ and ‘We had a lovely time and nothing negativewas said or done on those visits’ She told the court how the mother had cooked for them and, ‘couldn’t say how lovely and proud they were,’ the detail she gave in respect of those visits brought them alive and it was evident to me she was remembering them with affection. I accept her account of them.

Sadly, it appears matters deteriorated following the manner in which the father approached the parties’ engagement, which was not in accordance with cultural protocol, and his older sister Amelia being of the view the father should have first brought the mother to England to introduce her to the family. Having listened to the paternal grandmother’s description of the chaotic nature of the wedding planning, with some friends and family being invited and others not and then invitations being withdrawn, the father’s sisters not being invited and the paternal grandparents being put in a position of having to choose between their children, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation the only conclusion can be that matters were not handled well by anyone and with the benefit of hindsight the wedding would have been better delayed, as the mother had wanted, the father to his credit, recognised this in his evidence.

In any event it appears by the time the mother became pregnant with Benji there was a thawing of relations. The clear implication from the mother’s statements was the paternal grandparents were only interested in the baby because he was a boy, she tried in her evidence to distance herself from that, in many ways it matters not but I am satisfied from listening to the paternal grandmother they would have been delighted with any sex of grandchild.

I listened carefully to what I was told about the visit the paternal grandmother made alone to the couple prior to the birth of Benji, again I was struck by the details she provided and how she brought the visit alive to the court, I have no doubt it was a very good visit, the paternal grandmother was keen to nurture and assist the mother who was heavily pregnant and there was mutual warmth. She told the court how she had, ‘looked after the mother who was heavily pregnant, cooked cleaned batch cooked, the mother had sat at a stool in the kitchen they had good banter and they both enjoyed cooking.’ However, in terms of the parent’s relationship by June/July 2015, by way of the concessions document the father was first physically violent to her, ‘he grabbed the mother by her arms in a forceful manner and tried to prevent the mother (with the children) from leaving by putting his hands on the bonnet of the car’. I accept it must have been a very frightening experience for them all, not least because the mother was by then heavily pregnant with Benji.

There is no dispute the paternal grandparents did go over to visit the couple immediately after Benji’s birth and I accept they dropped everything to do so. The mother was less than complimentary about this visit in her statement, suggesting she did not invite them and didn’t want them there, ‘I did not wish to have visitors during this time but I was told by the father that I did not have a choice.’ She rather backtracked on that in her live evidence, I have no doubt from listening to the father and the paternal grandmother that their presence during those early days was invaluable, not least because the father did not drive and getting to and from the hospital where Benji and mother were for some time would have been very difficult. He told the court they had no support network, so the mother had welcomed the help and it was a happy time. Whilst the mother may be disingenuous about it now it is clear at the time she was very appreciative. She wrote a lovely thankyou card, ‘I just want to say a massive thank you. I would not have managed through the last week without you, from the lovely dinners to the huge emotional support. The help has been incredible and I am so grateful to you. My gifts are very special to me and my outfit is something I have always wanted..’She also gave the paternal grandmother a special gift to show her appreciation, a Claddagh ring with an engraving ‘Love Loyalty Friendship.’ There is a lovely picture of the paternal grandmother feeding tiny Benji in the bundle. It is evident from the photographs that over the next few weeks they were frequent visitors to the family, along with paternal aunts, I appreciate the mother says these visits were against her wishes and that, ‘I felt constantly abused rejected and pressurised by the father’s family throughout the relationship’ the external contemporaneous evidence suggests that in fact there were good relationships at this time and Benji had started to develop a loving relationship with the paternal family.

In January 2016, in accordance with the concessions document, the father was again violent to the mother, B97 ‘he grabbed hold of the mother and pushed her onto the lamp’ and in a separate incident ‘He struck the mother with his hand on the right side of her face whilst she was sat on the chair feeding Benji. This caused the mother’s face to hit the side of the chair.’ As I indicated at the hearing in July 2024, I consider this to be an extremely serious incident and the mother must have been terrified. I also accept despite Benji’s young age he will have been adversely affected by it and its aftermath.

Sadly, it appears further familial issues then arose, caused by the father’s eldest sister Amelia not wanting to meet Leah and Jake who were visiting their mother on the same weekend that they visited in May 2016. There has been much made of an incident in the street where the mother originally alleged in the fact-finding hearing that the father had hit his sister, she did not pursue it, I understand on the basis she had not witnessed any assault. She has put forward various versions of it, in her statement she described a situation whereby the family visited and stayed at a local hotel, his parents called and said they were coming to the house and only wanted to see Benji, she ‘walked out of the house with Leah, Jake and Benji in his pram. Unfortunately, the father’s family (his parents and sisters) were approaching our house and his father and sister started yelling at me and telling me I was a joke. They called me a white whore with bastard children The children were next to me and heard these comments…’ she describes a verbal and physical fight then breaking out and her and the children running to the park. I note she also describes the paternal grandfather and the ffather’s youngersister shouting at her, ‘the paternal grandfather called me a joke and his sister called me a white whore with bastard children.’ Leah in her statement said, ‘After my brother Benji was born, the father’s family came to visit and there was an argument, right in front of us, his whole family screaming at each other outside, because my mum wanted the father’s family to come and say hello to Jake and I as well as just Benji which resulted in mum telling us to go inside as we were both upset and frightened.’ The father denied any physical altercation took place but accepted there had been an argument, ‘there was shouting but he didn’t hit her or put his hands around her throat’. The paternal grandmother said she was not present at any such altercation and described how she and her husband had stayed with the family in their home that weekend including with Leah and Jake with her daughters in a hotel. When these matters were raised in the Fact-Finding hearing HHJ Judge Shaw queried the relevance, I do not disagree with his sentiments. It is difficult to see how a family argument more than 8 years ago which was subsequently resolved and relations thereafter were, in my judgment, very good, has much bearing on the issues I have to decide, not least as the mother specifically told the court that the paternal grandparents, ‘never had an argument with me.’

The net effect however of whatever happened was a further period of estrangement that lasted until May 2017. There was dispute as to how long it lasted, the father thinking it was longer, the mother thinking it was 12 months but then in evidence deciding she agreed with the father. The paternal grandmother told the court contact recommenced on the date of her own father’s birthday and that she had a photograph of Benji on her fridge from that day. I accept her evidence.

It was during that period of estrangement the parents moved from Ireland to Southern England in August 2016. Their relationship came under more pressure as they had moved with the promise of a job for the mother from her extended family, which turned out to be rather less well paid than she had hoped and the father struggled to find suitable employment. Despite what the mother has said, namely he was not the primary carer, ‘He was not his primary carer. Benji did not turn to his father for love and support’ he was clearly a stay-at-home parent during the period August 2016 to April 2017, in the father’s statement he said ‘I was a full time stay at home father for over 9 months,’ and ‘I was his sole carer during the day as she worked full time.’ Whilst the mother may well have only worked school hours and Benji may have been at nursery at times the fact is the father at this point was providing the larger share of the childcare. There is no record of any concerns about the care he provided and indeed the mother has not raised any in her evidence.

It appears from May 2017 relations with the paternal family were restored, initially just with the paternal grandmother, and then following the incident in August 2017, also with the paternal grandfather and the father’s younger sister. I accept the paternal grandmother initially visited frequently but thereafter a pattern of visits, broadly every other month, for the whole weekend Friday to Sunday, was established alongside weekly video calls and not as the mother in her statement has said, ‘only ever for a day or one night.’ The photographs in her statement show very happy times. By contrast during that period, there appear to have been far less contact with the maternal family. The paternal grandmother told the court she ‘loved the mother and was immensely proud ofher,' I am satisfied that was the case.

A considerable amount of time was spent on the incident on 19 August 2017, effectively on the basis the paternal grandmother had either covered up what had happened and/or had allowed the mother and children to be abused as this incident had put her on notice of what was going on in the home. In her statement she described how they had gone out for a meal and the father’s mother had babysat for them, she describes him being incredibly angry and yelling at her on return, and that ‘ the paternal grandmother was present and witnessed his behaviour’…I took my phone to call the Police however the father grabbed it off me and started bashing it repeatedly on the banister until it broke… the paternal grandmother was standing next to me at the time and I was asking her to get it back’ The police report records the mother as saying the father had not assaulted her, but had threatened to break her neck, there was no mention of the phone at all in the report save where she is described as having plugged it in in Leah’s room to charge it, the report concludes, ‘The mother and father are partners both had been drinking and a verbal argument occurred Assault recorded nothing more.’ The paternal grandmother’s statement describes the parents having an argument with them making cross allegations about the phone but states that she had not seen any such incident. The father sets out his explanation in his statement and notes the police evidence records him as the victim, ‘There has been an assault by the informant.’ In circumstances where there has already been a concessions document I do not consider it requires factual determination, the more relevant question is, did it alert the paternal grandmother to what was going on in the home or did she already know, as suggested by the mother.

The mother says, ‘When I went downstairs the father’s mother told me that this is how he was, she asked me not to support the prosecution and that she would take him away.’ I note Leah says, ‘The father’s mother came into me at one point because she was there, she talked to me about how this is how the father is and that she would try to make things better.’ I note however the mother told the court, despite what she said in her statement that she had not been told this directly by the paternal grandmother, but ‘had gleaned it from Leah’. She initially said that ‘Leah said she went in to her and said he always does this’ and later ‘the first thing she did was go into Leah’sroom and say this is what he is like don’t worry.’ I am afraid I do not believe her and it is a further example of her contradicting her own written account of events. The paternal grandmother told the court she had never said any such thing to either the mother or Leah. I accept that. Having listened to extensive cross-examination of the paternal grandmother, including the care she took that evening and the following morning to ensure the mother and children were supported and that the mother was happy for the father to return to the home, I simply do not believe she either knew the way the father could behave on occasions, was alerted to it by the events of the evening or confirmed her knowledge of it by such comments. She described the mother as a ‘private person’ she is supported in that by the email the mother sent to the father post separation asking for matters to be kept private and also the text exchanges between the parties pre-separation where he makes it clear that the mother has never allowed him to tell his parents what was going on,‘You told me not to ever say anything to my parents, but this is what you did and chose to do?’ which provokes anger in the mother, ‘What the fucking fuck has this got to do with your fucking parents now. Jesus Christ and here they are again…’I note he also told Dr Downs that his wife did not like him speaking to his parents about their problems and they were therefore unaware of what had happened.

The event however underlines another issued raised by the mother, namely the extent of the paternal grandparents’ role with Benji and the level of responsibility they had for him. It is of note that even relatively soon after family relations had been restored, the mother clearly had no difficulty in allowing the paternal grandmother to babysit whilst they went out for a meal, which she also treated them to. Despite her comments in her statement that they were never left alone with Benji, ‘The PGP’s were never on their own with Benji,’ and the implication that Leah was in effect supervising them, ‘The paternal grandfather did occasionally babysit Benji for a couple of hours but Leah was also there for Benji at bedtime’ and Leah’s statement for the Family Support Plan, C37 ‘When they would look after Benji overnight or during the day my mother would ask me to stay as she didn’t trust them alone with him and I was old enough to be left home alone, she would also let me have a friend over for company’ that was clearly not the position, she conceded in cross-examination that was not the case and that ‘Leah was not there to supervise she was just there’. She also agreed that the paternal grandmother could be trusted to follow routines and ‘was there because she trusted her to look after Benji’. I note the last time she babysat in January 2020 the parents actually went away for the weekend. It is most unfortunate how she has sought to negatively portray the grandparents relationship with Benji and again, of note, is the fact that Leah has been drawn into supporting what she said at the time.

It is however pertinent to note that incident made a number of things clear, not least that contrary to the cross examination she instructed her counsel to advance in respect of the paternal grandmother, she told the police that night, ‘ the father’s mother has approved, although not in the beginning and the mother now has quite a good relationship with her.’ It also appears that was the first occasion she raised the allegation that the paternal family would snatch Benji, ‘I am frightened he is going to take our son away from me.’ She goes on to say that she is scared of the father’s family and the fact they will try and take Benji. She goes on to explain she is concerned that the paternal grandfather will ‘take Benji away for good.’ This is an allegation which in my view took on a life of its own in the months following the party’s separation. There is no evidence whatsoever it was ever said by the father or any member of the paternal family. The mother admitted in the Fact-Finding hearing in November 2011 that no one had ever made such a threat. Furthermore, as counsel for the paternal grandparents put to the mother, there was a certain irony in the fact she was making that allegation to the police on the very night when she had invited the paternal grandmother to babysit the said child and in circumstances where she had happily allowed her to pay for their meal.

It is also the first time the issue of Honour Based Violence was raised. She refers to it in her first statement in these proceedings, ‘I have since learnt from the Police and from professionals who specialise in supporting victims of domestic abuse that the father’s behaviour has traits of Honour Based Violence. When the police attended at the incident in August 2017 they came out to me the next day and spoke to me more about the background, they talked to me about their belief this was Honour Based Violence.’ I note the police report refers to ‘an Honour Based Element to this couple’ The mother further says, ‘It can be seen that my comments to police led them to make referrals regarding HBV although I accept that at the conclusion of the fact finding I agreed not to pursue HBV as an allegation. Regardless it evidences just how much they scared me such that I felt the need to report it to the police.’ I don’t accept any part of that statement, her suggested ‘need to report it’ was in the context of telling the police she had quite a good relationship with the paternal grandmother to extent she had been content to leave the child she believed to be at so much at risk with her to go for a night out. Wherever the words first came from, the mother knew perfectly well there was nothing in it, the father was born and raised in the United Kingdom and is thus British of Indian heritage, and his parents whilst born in Kenya, were university educated here and have been resident here for approaching 50 years. It has brought an unfortunate element of racial stereotyping to this case which has not assisted and the onus I consider was on the mother to shut it down from the outset, the fact she waited until the Fact-Finding hearing suggests to me that post-separation, it may well have suited her purposes for the authorities to have that added level of concern.

The mother’s position has been there was little in terms of a relationship between Benji and his paternal grandparents, she said, ‘I want the court to be aware this is not about reigniting what was once a well-established and meaningful relationship……reintroduction of PGP’s into Benji’s life would be about developing a relationship from scratch’ and ‘The PGP statement is misleading and exaggerated regarding the extent to which they had a strong bond with Benji.’ I reject such statements, from all I have read and heard I accept the paternal grandparents did indeed have ‘a wonderful bond with our grandson’. In her evidence it was of note when asked if they had a lovely relationship she said, ‘They had a relationship.’ I am afraid counsel for the paternal grandparents may be correct when she suggested the mother’s responses suggested the relationship had been consigned to history. The mother later conceded in evidence, ‘Benji loved them and they loved him’. I am satisfied they did take him out to the park, the library, garden centres and more, and shared birthdays, Christmas and Diwali celebrations with him as shown in the myriad of photographs in the bundle.

I am also satisfied the paternal grandparents, particularly the paternal grandmother, enjoyed a lovely relationship with Leah, notwithstanding what Leah said in her statement for the Family Support Plan, ‘When the father’s family came round they would consistently talk in their own language when we were in the room to freeze us out.’ It is a sad feature of this case that the mother’s children, first Leah and then Benji, appear to be inappropriately involved in proceedings and seem to mirror what the mother says, irrespective of whether it is true or not. The mother accepted Leah was included in gifts at Diwali, Christmas and on birthdays. I have seen the messages, missed out of the bundle, between Leah and the Paternal Grandmother which show a warm and loving relationship, messages on the first day back to school, on birthdays, on her 16^th birthday, ‘Hey Sweet Sixteen Party Girl’ and other special occasions and the warm responses including ‘Aww thank you so much xx and thank you for the card too its lovely xx love you too xx’ It was a very lovely thing for Leah to do to teach Benji the Punjabi word for grandmother ‘Daddima’ and her hard work was clearly received with great delight, I don’t believe for a moment that would have been done if Leah did not like the paternal grandmother and feel accepted by her. I was very struck by the paternal grandmother’s evidence that she wanted to feel a part of both Leah’s and the mother’s life and she would deliberately watch a number of episodes of Eastenders before any visit so she had something in common with them and would follow a character Leah liked so would have matters to talk to her about. I don’t believe for a moment the paternal grandmother has made these things up and consider it incredibly sad the mother has chosen to present these relationships in such a negative and untrue way. It is evident by the point of the Family Support Plan when the parties had relocated to Norfolk, Leah was not only of the same mindset as the mother but was also making written statements to that effect.

In addition, is also clear that the mother enjoyed a very positive relationship with the father’s younger sister Ella despite accusing her of shouting at her and possibly being racially abusive to her. Ella was very complimentary to the mother and the communications show how integrated the families were by this stage, ‘Congratulations for Benji’sbirthday you all looked lovely for the Mandir and I loved his Peppa pig party! Hope you had a good weekend Mum and Dad said they really enjoyed it..’ The mother invited her to Diwali, ‘It would be lovely to maybe have you come and see us for a bit of Diwali, maybe we could make it asurprise for the father?’ She then does visit a few weeks later and sends a message thanking her, ‘Hi I just wanted to say thanks for these past few days. I had such a lovely time with Benji and it was good to finally meet Leah..’ and the mother responds ‘Ah thankyou so much, you are amazing with him truly brilliant and he loves you ! (So so much) I really hope you can come again soon it was great having you here xxx’. It continues in that vein, by way of example, Ella sends the mother congratulations again about the success of Benji’s third birthday, ‘Mum showed me the cake you baked and it looked amazing so a major well done to you, star baker!...’ It is evident that relationship continued post-separation which I will come to later.

It is clear over the intervening years from August 2017 to April 2020 when the parties separated their relationship was at times very difficult. The Concessions document sets out incidents of violence which occurred on 2 September 2018 ‘He twisted the mother’s arm causing bruising and swelling’ with the medical evidence in the mother’s statement ‘injury to right index finger todayswelling and bruising’ and February 2020, ‘He placed the mother into a form of restraint. The mother accepts she threw her head back butting the father during this event. The father also accepts that during the fracas that ensued he said to the mother ‘I should kill you.’ I accept entirely these incidents would have been very frightening for her and certainly the September incident would have left her in a lot of pain as well.

In addition, as per the Concessions Document, ‘Both parties accept that the relationship was a toxic one and resulted in both parents starting arguments which affected the care of the children when the parents were together’ and ‘Both parties accept there were arguments within the relationship with both participating in verbal sparring and using inappropriate language in person and via messages and in front of the children.’ As I have previously indicated the father, in my view, accepted full responsibility for his behaviour within the marriage and showed considerable insight as to the impact of this on the mother and the children. In contrast the mother was not able to acknowledge her role at all despite her agreement to the concessions, which involved both starting arguments which affected the care of the children and in front of them, and verbal sparring and inappropriate language in front of them. The reality of the concessions is Benji was witness to one very unpleasant incident of physical violence in January 2016 when he was 6 months old, the aftermath of 3 other incidents of physical violence when he wasn’t present, the father criticising the mother to him, the toxic nature of the relationship and arguments caused by both parties, including the one on 5 April 2020. To say that is not a case of trying to rewrite history or minimising the effects of the abuse the mother clearly suffered at the hands of the father or victim blaming, but simply the reality of the situation, and the mother has, by way of her own concessions, a measure of responsibility for what was going on in the home. All those involved in children work, and there is a large body of research to support this, are aware exposure to arguments alone can be very damaging for children, hence the acknowledgment of their effects in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It was entirely evident both from the mother’s written and oral evidence and the way she had instructed her case to be put, that there was no acknowledgement of that at all, her case was the father was the perpetrator and she and the children were the victims. I have to say, having considered the whole canvas of the evidence, including the text exchanges between the couple in the bundle and in particular having listened to Dr Van Velsen, I consider the case to be far more nuanced than that.

I also think one has to look at the wider picture too, and in my view to do so is again not minimising what happened or rewriting history, it is simply considering the matter holistically. It is clear the relationship between the parties was very good at times, the mother herself accepted in evidence that there were ‘good times, absolutely there were’, and the messages in the bundle clearly indicate the father could be very supportive of the mother , including ironically, when she was having difficulties with Charlie, now once again her husband. On 27 October 2019, she says, ‘I’ve had it I got treated like shit last night after spending every penny I had on her. I don’t have all the fucking money he has and I had to work so hard to do this and so hard for Christmas and I asked for nothing to be got,’ the father tells her, ‘I know. I do. That is why I want to help. I am in your corner here.’

The contemporaneous evidence in the bundle, by way of messages and photographs, show, even after he went back to work, he was a very involved father and the mother was content to leave him responsible for Benji while she went away on business trips or out with friends including overnight, C113-114 ‘Thankyou for taking him this evening and Leah’ and he was often responsible for him at the top of the house while she was downstairs and they would talk via messages with the mother enquiring how Benji was and the father reassuring her as to his routine and wellbeing. There were no complaints about his parenting or any suggestion in them of any difficulties in the relationship between Benji and his father. It is difficult to reconcile those messages with the mother’s later descriptions, ‘Benjiwas terrified of the father when he lived together’ and ‘Benji would not go into rooms in our home by himself and he flinched when the father entered a room. Benji often hid from the father either behind the sofa or under the duvet.’ She is without doubt a fiercely protective mother and not withstanding her vulnerabilities as a victim of domestic abuse, I do not accept she would have left Benji with the father in the way she clearly did in the home if she felt either he was unable to care for him, was likely to hurt him or if the child was scared of him. It is of note even in the messages just before the final incident in April 2020 when she is at her parents’ home but planning to return to Southern England and has told the father she wishes to separate, she wants his work schedule so he can do his fair share of looking after Benji while she works.

Leah came to live with the couple from Ireland in June 2017. There is no doubt from the concessions the father treated Leah, at times, in a completely unacceptable way. The concessions document states ‘the father was verbally abusive and over critical to Leah saying; i. Shut the fuck up, ii. If you do not want to help to fuck off back to Ireland with your father’ iii Ungrateful wretch.’ I consider such behaviour to be emotionally abusive, there can be no excuse for his behaviour, and to his credit he has not made any, either in his impact statement or in his live evidence. However, it would equally be wrong not to acknowledge this was far from an easy situation, to do so is not victim blaming just the realities of the situation, Dr Van Velsen herself alluded to this, Leah moved to live with the father as a teenager, away from her own father and brother and in a different country. It was inevitable that tensions would arise in the stepfather/stepdaughter relationship, and it is evident from the bundle there were difficulties, and on occasions she did not meet adult expectations in relation to chores, cleaning her room, or being back home on time, which caused tensions between the adults. The father describes in his statement that the mother would become frustrated and want him to get involved, Leah would resent this and then the mother would not support him as she was afraid Leah would go back to live with her father and would then side with Leah, reading the messages between the mother and father it is not difficult to see how that could happen. It also needs to be acknowledged that there are, in the bundle, lovely exchanges between him and Leah which suggest he had a positive parenting role in respect of her, he refers to her as poppet, by way of example when she suggests present ideas to him, he says ‘Cheers Poppet I will head out in about 15 to see what I can find :)’ she replies, ‘OK love you xxx’ and he gets presents and Mother’s Day cards for the mother and both grandmothers and hides them in her wardrobe for her to sign and for him to then post. In another message she is ill and he is clearly very concerned, he says, ‘Just told mum. She is freaking out’ she responds, ‘Right..meaning ?’ he says, ‘What was I thinking, why didn’t I sayanything,’ she says, ‘I did warn you she’d react like that xx but at least she enjoyed dinner likeyou wanted I assume x I mean no matter whether you got it or not she got it so it makes no difference who takes care of him.’ It also appears that he was the one she turned to when she did not tell the truth to her mother about a gift received from her father Charlie, and that the father was the peace maker in that situation, ‘I don’t know what happened today poppet but you will need to make this right with mum. She is going to be angry and upset right now so give her some time and space but maybe in a little bit go and talk to her,’ Leah replies, ‘I want to make it right I’m sorry I just don’t know how to cos if I go in I’ll just get screamed at and I can’t fix anything then’ he asks, ‘I just don’t understand why you lied Did he ask you to?’ she says, ‘He said to just say someone else got it or something like that because he didn’t want it to seem like he’d got it when he knew I’d asked for it like a year ago or something so yeah.’ I do not note these matters to detract from the admissions or, as has been suggested to many witnesses in this case, to rewrite history, but to bring some much needed balance to this case.

It appears clear by 31 March 2020 the mother wanted a separation, she is in Norfolk and has viewed a property, ‘I went to view a property and not a break.’ It had been an ongoing conversation throughout the day, as earlier at 10:39am there is a discussion about the fact her salary has been reduced by 10% and he offers support, ‘If you would rather not speak to me right now I understand that but I am still here for you I love you and I still care. I am here if you need.’ She says, ‘I needed to leave I had houses set up’ . He offers to move to his parents, ‘Ok So let’s work something else out for a bit? Please? I don’t want to have to go to my parents if I can avoid it but if that is what is needed I will. I didn’t want to involve them or make them aware, but it means you can stay in the house…’ she responds, ‘No I was going to say to get somewhere in London not your fucking parents,’ he replies, ‘Yeah but thatcosts money money we don’t have’. It continues that evening at 20:22pm when he asks her to consider other options and raises concerns about how he will see Benji and how they will work on their relationship, she says ‘What I’m willing to do is potentially be together in 6 months,’ and says he will have contact each weekend, ‘All I’ve been looking at are places that have transport and I would get you etc and I thought you’d see him every weekend Which when you are working every weekday that’s the same as now when you go back.’ She plans for Leah to stay in Southern England with a friend and says ‘She will come back at weekends and holidays with you I’d assume.’

She returns to Southern England on 2nd April 2020 and as per the Schedules of Concessions an argument took place in April 2020 which resulted in the parties separation, ‘The Mother and Father accept there was an argument on this occasion but the Mother does not pursue any findings in respect of this allegation’. The father was arrested and bailed to his parents’ property and Childrens Services in Southern England became briefly involved.

The mother emails the father on 10 April 2020, ‘I am having to contact as I do not know what is happening. No one has told me anything or been in contact with me since you left. I do not know if or when you are coming back here. We are still here at the moment. I also don’t know what is happening about bills and what I need to cover before anything is missed. Thank you.’ She then messages him on 12 April 2020 ‘I would like to speak to you. I have spoken to the police today. I would not be stating this to them but there are things to talk about and I am not going through others to do it.’ I note she told the police on 12 April 2020 that she was going to move but she still wanted the father to have contact with their son ‘as their relationship was a good one.’ Ella responds as the father was subject to bail conditions shortly thereafter, ‘Hey it’s Ella, Hope you are well. The father’s been told he is not allowed to contact yourself …Rent will still be paid and should you need anything else, even if it’s just a chat. I know we haven’t spoken very much but I hope you do know that we are all for you...’ The mother responds, ‘Thank you so much for contacting me. And thank you for saying you are here for me too…I can imagine I’m not very popular and I understand that. I will also never stop the father seeing or talking to Benji ever..’ Ella then replies, ‘Just remember we are all part of the same family team and we’re always here for one another. No one thinks that about you and we never have, we wish that you had called us sooner we could’ve been there to support you and have come up to intervene before it escalated to this…’ The mother responds, ‘Thank you verymuch it means a huge amount more than you’ll know.’

Video contact commenced between Benji and the father, via the paternal grandparents, on 11 April 2020. There was dispute as to the frequency of the contact, with the father and paternal family saying it was daily, sometimes more, and the mother saying in her statement ‘that is not true there were to my recollection 3 to 4 phone calls during that period..’ She repeats that in her later statement, ‘Post-separation it is not correct that Benji spoke to them every day, I felt constantly bombarded with messages from them each day asking for calls, but we managed around one per week from separation until mid May 2020 There were 3 or 4 in total.’ There is a significant difference there of about 30 calls. The fact is it was the level she herself had proposed to them, ‘I’m good thank you if the calls with the father can be each day and then we can do a weekly one with yourselves that would be great. I’m fine for that to be on a Monday if that’s good for you ? Of course if you need to speak to me thats no problem at all either at any point. Hope all is good there?’ The mother said in chief said, ‘that she would change it to daily to begin with and then it tapered out’ despite only the day before instructing her counsel to challenge the father that he was lying about the frequency. I am afraid I don’t think this was something she had got wrong but was yet a further attempt to minimise the role, both of the father and the paternal grandparents, in the child’s life, and also to downplay the level of contact they had post separation. I am satisfied the contact was broadly daily, and on occasions more frequent than that, by way of example ‘Can the father call Benji in half an hour he would just like a quick chat with him..’ the paternal grandmother replies, ‘Yes that’s fine. I have told the father. He is working but will stop…’ the mother says, ‘If he’s busy its absolutely fine, he just asked’.

I bear in mind her case in her statement is ‘The first phone call was ok but prior to the second phone call Benji expressed a specific wish not to see his father again and ran away.... However this became a repeating pattern before every phone call and Benji became visibly more and more distressed before and after each call. It is of note the calls commenced on 11 April 2020 but she didn’t confirm, by text, the level of calls at daily until 24 April 2020, such a timeline does not fit with her account of the effect of the calls on Benji and poses the question why then would she set such a high level of calls if the child neither wanted them or was so distressed by them, something that would have been very evident by then. It also does not fit with the fact she clearly instigated extra calls seemingly at Benji’s request or when calls didn’t happen follows them up, ‘Is he no longer calling?’ When she is told, ‘We have instructed by the police that you have to initiate the call and ring us first. We havebeen waiting as the Police said they would inform you. The father is happy to talk to Benji now’ she responds, ‘I haven’t been told that at all. I’m sorry I had no idea.’ I have no doubt at the time she realised there was a strong bond between Benji his father and his paternal grandparents and, whatever the adult issues, she wanted to ensure that was maintained. Such a sentiment was one she had expressed directly to the father by email at the time, to his family in messages and she had also confirmed it to the police. The Guardian in her final analysis notes, ‘This would have perhaps been reassuring for Benji at that time, having experienced significant and adverse events and changes to his living arrangements.’ There were some initial tensions between the adults at the beginning of the calls when the mother noted a call being recorded she asked the paternal grandmother for confirmation that was not the case, ‘Hi there sorry I’d like the confirmation in writing and not in a phone call thanks very much’ and the paternal grandmother tells her that no recordings had been made. As I have already said the paternal grandmother had already made a recording by this point and explained to the court she had done that previously without issue. I can well understand why she did this and I have to say I find nothing sinister in it, but as I had already said the paternal grandmother clearly should not have lied to the mother about it.

The mother emails the father in the midst of the ongoing video contact on 16 April 2020, ‘I just wanted to update you. Not obviously wanting any contact back…We have packed up and are leaving the house as you requested. I would prefer this is kept private however I’m not sure it will be. I’m at home alone with the children. I don’t have anyone around me here. Don’t want our business talked about…I’m sure you are missing Benji. I will always make sure you have access to him when you want…We will be out by the end of this month. I am contacting and will update as of course I don’t want money spent by yourself for us I wont put you in a bad financial situation. Benji has been mentioning bits on the phone so I wanted to say there is nothing happening that hasn’t been asked from you…Leah has been quite badly affected so I don’t think she will want contact anymore…when possible a phone conversation will probably be beneficial to go through next steps’. I note however she tells Southern England police on 27 April 2020 the following, ‘ the mother will be moving out of Southern England to Norfolk …the mother is worried about how the father will react to her moving, but will not let him know she is moving and will not give her new address,’ which not only flies in the face of what she had already told the father a week before, but also does not sit with the fact she was keeping the paternal family updated so they would know when the rent would no longer need to be paid and when to collect the fathers belongings. It appears the mother was telling very different things to different people.

Sometime has been spent in the hearing on the use of the word ‘flee’ which permeates these papers, in the mother’s statements and throughout the reports of the professionals, both those working with Benji and otherwise. In many ways it is a small point, the mother says in her first statement August 2021, ‘On 4 May 2020 when Benji was 5 and Leah was 17, and with the help of professionals, we fled the father’s abusive behaviour and moved to Norfolk…’ and the father first raises objection to it in his statement dated 1 September 2021. However its use is also perhaps an example of what has happened in this case, namely events have been awarded greater significance than perhaps they should and have rather taken on a life of their own. It is clear from the evidence the mother had viewed Norfolk properties in March 2020, she said on 30 March 2020 she had a property, her plan was already to move there when she returned to Southern England on 2 April 2020 and the father was well aware of that. The incident which occurred in April 2020, as per the agreed concessions document, was an argument in front of the children. The father was bailed over a hundred miles away from the property. Despite her attempts to contact him he did not breach his bail conditions and respond at any time. She had been reassured by his family there was no need worry about rent or bills. She had emailed him directly on 16 April 2020 and told him not only was she on her own in the house with the children, which does not sit well with her later suggestion she was worried he would turn up at her home and/or take Benji, along with an approximate date she was planning to leave. None of those things sit well with the idea she had to ‘flee’ violence, but rather suggests this was a planned move, not as a result of the incident in April 2020, but as a result of the issues in the relationship, which of course included the domestic abuse, furthermore everyone was kept in the loop about her plans and she had wanted to speak to the father directly when she could. One could argue this was semantics, but I equally take the point that post the return to Norfolk such a description suited her then narrative.

The video contact came to an end shortly after the move to Norwich on in May 2020. The mother has given the court a variety of reasons for it. In her statement she said, ‘Benji chose a time when he felt safe, when we got to Norfolk to tell me he no longer wanted to see or speak to his father again. It was causing huge distress to get him to talk on the phone when indirect contact was proceeding, and Benji would often run and hide behind the sofa in an attempt to avoid the call.’ She told HHJ Judge Shaw in the Fact-Finding hearing, ‘I knew that I wanted to leave the house in Southern England. We had some time so as I say kept everything normal. I did not want the family knowing we were leaving. I did not tell them until the day that we had gone, and I kept the phone calls the video calls going with Benji. He didn’t want to carry them on. He said no to doing that but I said no just let’s keep things going let’s just keep things normal carry on so he did them..’ Such a statement very clearly is not true as she had already emailed the father on 16 April 2020 and told him she was leaving at the end of the month and was keeping the paternal family updated on it.

The father and the paternal grandmother both told the court the child was engaged, happy and showed no distress in the calls. The father said in his statement, ‘Benji during the video calls which I had with him during the month following the separation showed no signs of trauma whatsoever and was more than happy to talk to both myself and my parents.’ There are photographs in the bundle showing a child with a big smile on his face during the video contact, the paternal grandmother told me on the last occasion of contact he was a happy child in the garden with a big stick talking about how tall he was. I have seen a video that supports such accounts, and the Guardian has also seen it and her final analysis describes a happy Benji chatting to his father and grandparents. The only incident of upset was in the middle of the contact period, when Benji became a bit upset, the paternal grandmother messages, ‘Hey the father has just said that Benji has got a bit upset. Obviously he didn’t want to do that. Hope he calms down for his sleep. We’ll talk tomorrow’. The mother replies, ‘Benji was upset about a painting he couldn’t show as it was wet. He wasn’t upset about his call or anything else. He’s fine now and watching his programs.’ I have already commented on the almost incomprehensible explanation she gave in cross examination for this, namely she had been lying that it was about a painting, in any event I reject that, I am satisfied the calls were as described by the father and paternal grandmother and that there were no real difficulties before or after the calls. Children’s Services in Southern England were involved briefly before Benji moved out of the area, a social worker spoke to Benji on 1 May 2020,‘I asked if there was anything he was worried about or anything making him sad Benji said no. I asked Benji what he was enjoying at the moment Benji said he is enjoying playing all day. I asked Benji if he had a magic wand what would he wish for and he said marshmallows. Benji said he had been speaking to his dad on the phone.’ There is no suggestion in that report of any issues being raised about the video contact either by Benji or the mother. On 5 May 2020 the mother completed an impact statement for the police and describes the effect of what happened on her and the children, in it she states, ‘I appreciate Benji needs to have a relationship with his dad and I am not opposed to this …’

On the last occasion of contact on 7 May 2020 both the father and the paternal grandmother told the court there were no issues. The mother describes that during the final call the father and his parents started to ask more probing questions of Benji including where he was living, ‘After the call Benji came down the stairs and said to my mum ‘Daddy is going to be angry with me ..because I didn’t show him the house.’ She goes on to say in the call, ‘the paternal grandmother tried to make arrangements to collect Benji to take him back to her house for a few days. I refused,’ and made reference to covid restrictions, which of course allowed continuing contact between children and their separated parents. The father told the court that in the video call he had asked Benji if he had a nice house and nice garden and was he having fun, not where he lived, and Benji said he was happy and excited about his garden, he went on to say they had asked if he could have Benji for a week, and ‘two dayslater the contact stopped.’ The paternal grandmother also messaged her after she moved to Norfolk asking for the father to have Benji for a few days and suggested Thursday to Monday. The mother messages the paternal grandmother and says the video calls are going to stop, ‘..I hope you didn’t mind me asking the question as I really just want to be treated as a person not a legal issue to deal with. Benji has been like a different child for the better recently and has also been saying a lot about how he has felt and how he is feeling now so I am going to see how he gets on without calls for a few days as this is best for him and Leah as she is very much in this also. Thank you for saying you are supporting me also.’

The paternal grandmother was very understanding of situation and make it clear she wanted lines of communication to be kept open, ‘I can assure you that we do not have whispering about you. It’s because I answer the call and then pass the phone to the father. He then normally goes into a different room. Again, we have issues with the signal here. And it’s usually me who’s walking around talking probably or laughing at what Benji is saying especially when he is trying to tell his jokes. The father wants what’s best for the children too… I hope this helps and we can speak to you both as soon as possible. If you wish to talk to me please do call. I will keep my phone close to me. Take care and stay safe. Love to all’.

The paternal grandmother then sends four messages enquiring as to her welfare over next few days and making it clear they want to be seen separately from the father, ‘Regardless of the issues between the father and you we still care for you all and want Benji to know that his Daddima and Grandad love him lots. Hope you can allow us to speak to Benji as we want to be seen separately. I wanted to share photos of the potatoes and other plants that I have grown for him..’ The mother had stopped responding and the paternal grandmother then messages the maternal grandmother as she was previously given her number, it is a very pleasant message saying they were reaching out to make sure ‘she is ok and to see if we can work to re-opening regular contact, we are worried as I have said to the mother already.’ The response from the mother indicates a change of tone to one of anger, ‘I won’t be having written requests from the father come to me for contactcertainly not at this time. Especially if this will include Benji ever being taken anywhere as this will not happen… Please also have consideration for my well-being and Leah’s and my safety and acknowledge that I left for a reason and wasn’t the cause. Thanks very much.’

I agree with what was submitted on behalf of the father, once the mother and the children were back living in Norfolk, her attitude to contact fundamentally changed. Whilst she talked in the above email to the father about her isolation in Southern England, it appears from the documents in the bundle from the various agencies working with her in Norfolk, she was equally isolated save for her parents, compounded by the fact the country was in full lockdown at that stage. It has been suggested her change in attitude could have been as a result of the influence of the maternal family, I have not heard from them, the statement of maternal grandfather suggests he feels very strongly about the father, ‘he should be held accountable for the disgusting treatment he inflicted on her (Leah).’ On one level such a view is entirely understandable in the sense his daughter and grandchildren had been subjected to physical and emotional abuse and his natural instinct must have been to protect them, equally it appears from that statement the father’s criminal acquittal incensed him and he felt he had not paid for what he had done. The paternal grandmother told the court of a phone call she had with the maternal grandmother in May 2020, I appreciate it was not in her written statement, it was prompted by questions in cross examination, and I can understand why it wasn’t in her statement, as she has tried to focus on the future, but the maternal grandmother was vitriolic about the paternal family and made it clear that contact would not happen. I have not heard from the maternal grandmother, but I have no reason to doubt the paternal grandmother’s account, it rang true and is supported by the attitude of the maternal grandmother as demonstrated in the contact centre notes, where she arguably undermined the preparation arrangements for the first contact and behaved in a way that can only have increased the child’s distress. It is difficult to say whether the mother was empowered to make her own decisions about the continuation of contact once back with her parents or was encouraged or pressured to do so. In many ways it matters not as the effect was the same, the shutters came down on contact, however it is relevant the child was by then living in a household where his maternal grandparents’ attitude to the father and contact was far less balanced than the mother’s had clearly been whilst living in Southern England.

I think why the contact came to end is very important in terms of the trajectory the case has subsequently taken The mother describes ‘When we moved from Southern England Benji was a very scared and anxious child. He would not go anywhere not even into another room without me or Leah with him. He wet the bed at night and had nightmares, due, I think to the father going into his room at night and shouting and screaming. He would refuse to go to the toilet at school and so would wet himself…’ These aredescriptions of his behaviour that permeate the notes of the agencies that worked with Benji over the following months and years. They are all accounts given by the mother, save I accept school have independently reported issues around him going to the toilet, albeit they attribute no cause to it. I accept Benji will have been affected by what went on in the family home, not just his father’s behaviour but also the toxic atmosphere and arguments in front of him that both accepted responsibility for in the concessions document, however he will also have been affected by his father no longer being in the home, moving from Southern England to Norfolk, living with his grandparents for the first time, a change of school and lockdown and all the fears that came with it generally. I think it is very difficult to say Benji’s difficulties were exclusively due to the father’s behaviour. Whilst I am sure the mother was worried about Benji, and whilst I accept the principle of delayed reaction to trauma, there is no evidence at all it was playing out in or around the video calls. I am satisfied that contact wasn’t stopped because the child was showing distress, either before during or after contact, but primarily because the mother was worried about the prospect of direct contact taking place, which with Lockdown, the bail conditions, and the distance between the parties, would inevitably have meant blocks of time and staying contact. I note she told the court that even now, at age 9, Benji has never spent a night away from her on a sleepover, even with the maternal grandparents, in those circumstances I have no doubt the prospect of him going to stay with the paternal grandparents, whose home she herself had always refused to go to, was one she simply could not countenance. Even if I am wrong about that, on the mother’s case, any distress due to past experiences, can only have related to the father, there was no good reason to stop the paternal grandparents’ video contact who made it clear they wanted to be considered entirely separately from the father.

On arrival in Norfolk the mother and the children were referred by the Health Visitor to the Local Authority, Early Help was initiated, they completed an assessment in July 2020 and a Family Support Plan was set up. The Health Visitor made a referral to Action for Children, and they began work in May 2020 and to CAMHS Point 1 service in December 2020. Benji’s school also made a referral for counselling services via YMCA which commenced in October 2020.Victim Care began to work with Leah and Leeway provided support for the mother.

I agree with the Guardian, I have no doubt each of these services’ involvement came from a place of wanting to support and assist those who were undoubtedly victims of domestic abuse, however those roles do not sit easily alongside the court process and particularly not prior to a fact-finding hearing. As the services work purely on the basis of the victim’s account, and without involvement of the perpetrator for obvious reasons, the work done is inevitably a reflection of the honesty and balanced approach of those partaking in the process. Furthermore, if a fact-finding hearing results in different facts being found or a more nuanced picture emerging than those alleged by the victim, the work done particularly with any child can be counterproductive and, in some situations, positively harmful. Sadly, I have seen this situation arise on occasions in the past and I consider it an understatement when the Guardian said the effect here had been ‘unfortunate’ and the work ‘ill advised.’

I have read with care the notes of all the professionals working with the family in the months and years following the cessation of contact. I consider a number of themes have emerged; the mother has not always provided an honest and/or balanced account to them of past events and thus the work done with Benji, has consequentially, not been accurate or balanced, the suggestion of the children being ‘snatched’ has taken on a life of its own, working relationships have become blurred and professionals have been drawn into and inappropriately involved with both the criminal and family court proceedings, the Guardian noted on occasions that professionals had referred to it as ‘our case,’ and Benji from the age of 5 years has been adultified and inappropriately involved with every aspect of the family court proceedings. Each of these require some exploration.

It is clear the family began working with Action For Children from about May 2020 on a weekly basis. They completed what variously has been described as the ‘Words and Pictures’ book or the ‘Life Story’ work with Benji. The mother originally told the court ‘The story was only visited once in its entirety with Benji and Leah.’ In her live evidence she said, ‘Benji did not read it as it was a narrative story she contributed to so Benji would not have to talk about it. Social Services put it together to give Benji’s school and professionals a background explanation of the abuse. He was not told it, he was not read it.’ I do not accept that. It is written for a child, it has stick people drawings on it for a child, and in any event Benji has drawn on almost every page. As the Guardian said were it information for professionals it could have been put in an email. It is evident from the documents the book was taken to school and regularly shared with him there. The Section 7 report states, ‘Benji has shared his worries in school with his trusted class adults by referring to his worry book or talking about his personal story book These items have been shared from home and were completed with another professional. Benji chose to keep his personal story book in school and his worry books at home as he said he didn’t want to keep his worry books in school. He has been comfortable to talk about his worries with class adults over time and the TA offers Benji time to talk about his feelings or books each week.’ This is confirmed in the Point 1 referral form dated 20.10.2020 ‘Benji will share his story with people he trusts and he has taken his story book to school.’

The narrative information was provided by the mother. It is, in my judgment, unbalanced unfair and at points simply untrue. I struggle to see how some of the comments could possibly be considered helpful to any child trying to understand their life story, in particular in relation to attitudes and events before he was even born. It does however provides contemporaneous evidence of the attitude of the mother at this stage towards the father and the paternal family, who had been drawn into it. When describing when the parties met it reads ‘They (Leah and Jake) visited mummy ever week as everyone lived in Ireland. Daddy found it difficult to understand that taking care of children was a big responsibility and took up a lot of mummy’s time when Leah and Jake were visiting.’ There has been no complaint in these proceedings about the father failing to support the mother’s contact with her children when they were first together, however it sets an immediately negative tone, namely the father was resentful of Benji’s siblings and had no understanding of children, I cannot see any reason why this would be included. On the next page the paternal grandparents are brought into the narrative, ‘Daddy’s family did not want Mummy and Daddy to live together or get married as they came from a different background and had different beliefs and ways of thinking’ such a statement, in light of my findings, is not only untrue but inappropriately introduces the issue of racism to a 5 year old child, and goes on to say, ‘That made Daddy angry with them and Mummy’ which is not only oversimplification but also a very one sided viewpoint. It then goes on to say, ‘mummy was very excited to have another baby daddy would talk to his friends about having a baby he would not talk to mummy about how he felt.’ Again, there has been no evidence in these proceedings at all to suggest the father was not happy about the prospect of Benji’s arrival, but the suggestion is clearly made that only his mother was excited for his arrival, in fact the mother told Dr Van Velsen ‘the pregnancy with Benji was not a surprise and both she and the father were pleased.’ Once again it brings in the paternal grandparents, ‘Daddy had organised for his family to come and stay with Mummy and Daddy even though Mummy had said no as they had been so unkind,’ not only have I found that not to be the case and the mother has been less than honest about those matters, she then amalgamates two incidents and goes on to describe the alleged incident in the street, which has always been a matter of dispute, and which she chose not to pursue at the fact-finding hearing. It then goes on to suggest, ‘Jake decided he did not want to live with Mummy because he did not like Daddy or his family’ which rather ignores the fact Jake lived with his father in any event. It also says ‘Mummy did not want bad people who had been unkind to her and her children around them and Benji. That made daddy angry,’ I have found the grandparents were neither unkind to her or to her children, it reinforces a narrative that they are bad people. It them sets out an incident which by way of the concessions, the mother accepted had not happened, involving the father ‘slamming his hands on the car next to Benji’, and refers to the incident that prompted the separation, for which the father was acquitted by the criminal courts and which, by way of the agreed concessions document was an argument only and not a scenario whereby the father had ‘thrown Mummy and pushed Leah in front of Benji.’ All the pages have angry faces or sad faces to depict the father and Benji and he had clearly drawn on most of them. The narrative provided by the mother did not, in my view, give anything like a balanced picture of what life had been like for this little boy and any child having it read to them on a regular basis would inevitably form a very poor picture both of their father but also the paternal grandparents, and rather than allay fears it would undoubtedly have increased them. The Guardian in her final analysis said, ‘the interventions of the numerous professionals has compounded his narrative and the way he sees his experiences and family dynamics.’ I agree, but also consider the interventions have influenced his narrative in a way not representative of his actual life story.

Alongside the life story work Benji was given worry books to fill in. The mother in her statements said that these were either completed with Action for Children, done at home independently or filled in at school with his teaching assistant. It is evident the narrative from the life story work was reflected by Benji in his worry book drawings, ‘Dad don’t come here never ever 5 times Bang Bang He was hitting the car it scared me,’ and, ‘I don’t want to get in here,’ by 17 October 2020 ‘Daddy I want him to die’ accompanied by a picture of him dead onthe floor, and by 8 November 2020, ‘he wants daddy to go off the earth.’ I note just after this the father was acquitted of all charges following the events in April 2020 with the mother and Leah having given evidence at the trial.The following month on 14 December 2020, he told the court he had looked at the mother’s LinkedIn profile using his own profile, they were not divorced, part of him was still hoping they would reconcile, he had been drinking and was on his own, and he described it as a moment of weakness which he has never repeated as he was still going through the process of grieving the relationship. He also agreed he had uploaded photos to his own google drive in December 2020 between Christmas and New Year when he was on leave from work to free up space on his own PC to install a computer game. He didn’t realise she had access until 17 January 2021 when the Police alerted him, at which point he changed the permissions and removed her. He said he was not harassing her. By the New Year however Benji’s pictures in his worry books had evolved to include things never alleged to have happened; 9 February 2021 ‘glass throwing makes Benji sad,’ 22 January 2021, ‘Daddy is punching us Daddy is hurtingus,’ 19 April 2021, ‘kicking and punching and he is trying to come here and it is making me sad,’ and it is noted, ‘Benji recently drew a worry in his worry book and told his ECFS worker that daddy frightens him, Daddy hurts him and he never wants to see daddy alive and if he is I want him dead, I don’t want him on this earth.’ Sadly, by chronologically going through the pictures it is possible to track how Benji had gone from laughing and joking with his father on video contact to wanting him dead and off the earth in less than 5 months.

The issue of the children being ‘snatched’ I am afraid not only took on a life of its own but was, at the very least, picked up by Benji, if not directly communicated to him. The letter from the Local Authority dated 13 July 2020 states, ‘the mother has shared she is worried that the father’s family would snatch Benji as they have been in contact with her to see if they can spend time with Benji,’ I struggle to see how the fact the paternal grandmother messaged in May 2020 and asked about whether Benji could have contact with his father could reasonably be interpreted as a ‘snatch’ situation, however in the ‘The House of Worries’ work Benji was saying, ‘I worry that daddy will come and take my toys or destroy them’ and ‘Benji is worried that daddy will come to his happy house and take him away’. It becomes a constant theme of worry throughout his work with professionals. The referral form from Action for Children states, ‘there is also a worry that her ex-husband and his family would try and flee with her son,’ and ‘Mum has expressed concern that Benji will be snatched by his father or his family… Benji recently asked his mum if all mummies are good in case his daddy takes him away will he have a new mummy who is good.’ This was later expanded to include Leah and direct threats, with Action for Children reporting, ‘Leah is fearful that she will be abducted by the father or people he knows, because the father has threatened this’ which is a further example of how Leah is drawn into the mother’s narrative and reports those matters to Professionals, even when they are simply not true. There is also a suggestion the safety plans need to be updated … ‘the mother has been proactive in doing this she will talk to Benji about what to do in an emergency how to do it and where to go.’ It is evident from his drawings and work with professionals that Benji had been either been given the information that his father and/or his father’s family were going to ‘snatch him’ or was allowed to believe it, unsurprisingly it became a huge fear for him, and it was only reinforced by the mother talking to Benji about what to do and where to go in such an emergency. It is clear the mother was well aware there was no such risk as she accepted in the Fact-Finding hearing in front of HHJ Judge Shaw that there had never been any threats by anyone and she confirmed that in this hearing.

It is also evident from looking through the papers that many of the professionals were drawn into what else was going on in the mother’s life, including the ongoing criminal and family proceedings. Whilst that would be expected in relation to Leeway, who were there to give the mother that support, it is less understandable in relation to either Action for Children or the Health Visitor who led the Family Support Plan. I do think however it is important to bear in mind the mother was isolated, she had only recently returned to Norfolk and save for her parents had few social connections, and also the country was going in and out of Lockdown at this stage so perhaps her dependence on professionals was more understandable, albeit I am not sure the same can be said for their lack of professional detachment. It is clear she provides Action for Children with a running commentary on how the court proceedings have gone, the things that have not been done correctly, that she has a new solicitor, that at this court hearing the mother felt her solicitor was useless, it notes ‘ to submit report to the solicitor stating that the mother was not in the room when wishes and feelings work completed’ which she then did, ‘Benji has always been consistent in sharing with me that he does not want to ever see his daddy again. Benji told me his daddy makes him feel sad, that he was rude, he shouted and did unkind things.’ It is clear when the mother sent emails to her solicitor she copied the Action for Children worker into them and their records note what the mother told her about the latest court hearing, ‘the father has stated he was a stay at home dad caring for Benji while the mother says he left the home every day to work in London. The father’s parents are stating that they were carers for Benji, while the mother has stated that they showed very little interest in Benji and had very little contact with him. Benji has never talked about his grandparents on his father’s side of the family with me or demonstrated any interest in them. Whilst he has always talked about his mother’s parents and uncle,’ such a recording raises two concerns, firstly that as a childcare professional, having completed the narrative work with Benji, including all the references to the paternal grandparents’ attitude and behaviour, she is surprised he doesn’t talk about them, and secondly, that by this stage it is apparent she has been drawn entirely in the mother’s corner and is in fact, even as she records their discussion, is providing her own evidence to counter the matters the mother has told her have been raised in court. It should not be forgotten that she was continuing to do one to one work with Benji throughout this period.

A very similar situation developed with the mother’s relationship with the Health Visitor, who was of course leading the Family Support Plan, she constantly updated her as to what was going on in the court process, to the extent that following an update from the mother that the father’s lawyer had been critical of the Cafcass report and Action for Children work she wrote to the Local Authority asking for advice, ‘We as a team supporting the family feel concerned Benji’s voice has been disregarded’ in what could be construed as an attempt to interfere with the court process. I was very surprised to see the father’s position statement for the hearing 14 May 2021 appear in the disclosure from the Health Visiting service which can only be there because they had been given it by the mother. The Guardian noted professionals referring to it as ‘our case’ and I think that is quite right, a viewpoint very much perpetuated by the mother, I note she emails the Health Visitor about the father’s meeting with Cafcass, ‘His meeting was today so I’m wondering what was said. I’m hoping she is on our side as before.’ It was of course the Health Visitor who in February 2022 emailed the Guardian raising concerns about the proposal of family therapy.

It is during this period that the mother appears to give Benji complete responsibility for making his own decisions about his father. She told HHJ Shaw in the Fact-Finding hearing, in a continuation of the comments she had made in her statements, that ‘When we got to Norfolk Benji told me he didn’t want to do the calls anymore,’ when it was suggested that was a big decision for a 5 year old to make she said, ‘I don’t think so because you need to meet him first to decide that, but he is a very articulate and confident little boy.’ Similar comments were made to both Dr Downs, ‘when they moved to Norfolk Benji told her he did not want to do the calls anymore’ ‘she was very led by Benji he was a very competent little boy who knew his own mind’ and to Dr Van Velsen ‘Mother told her contact was up to Benji, she asked if that was quite a burden for a 7 year old, she had asked him what he wanted but couldn’t say to Benji it was a good idea for him to meet his dad,’ who also raised the same concerns. She told the court she has stopped the calls as Benji was saying he didn’t want to speak to his father. In my view, it is hardly surprising if he had said he did not want to see his father or the paternal family in light of the narrative she had given to professionals and which had been fed to him over the preceding months, even absent any other influence. She then relies on his decision making to justify her own refusal or inability to promote contact.

It also appears Benji by this stage had been inappropriately drawn into the ongoing family court proceedings, which had been started by the father on 12 June 2020. Whilst I appreciate, he would have needed a basic understanding of why he was meeting the Cafcass officer it is evident it was far more than that. In a meeting with Action for Children, after his meeting with the Cafcass officer, it is recorded, ‘Benji has voiced that he feels that he did not do good enough and was worried that he had not answered the questions well enough,’ bearing in mind he was only 5,such comments suggest to me, as submitted on behalf of the father, an element of coaching and that his concern was he had not followed the narrative he had been given. The Cafcass officer completed a section 7 report on 30 March 2021, she recorded Benji as saying, ‘Daddy has been rude to us. He punches kicks and says bad words’ and she recommended no direct contact. It is recorded that ‘Benji was overjoyed with the original Cafcass report stating that he should not have contact with his father’ and that ‘Both Benji and Leah have had a setback upon hearing the father is contesting the Cafcass decision.’ In his Wishes and Feelings work on 16 June 2021 he states, ‘Yesterday Mummy was speaking to the judge when I got home I asked Mummy how the meeting Mummy was said they were trying to make it end. I want it to finish I am tired of saying everything to everyone.’ On 30 June 2021 in the Action for Children work it is recorded, ‘Benji had asked her what happens now, mother talked Benji through possible options including Benji having contact in a contact centre’. It is not to be forgotten that throughout this period of more than a year Benji had had no contact either direct or indirect with either the father or the paternal family.

The Magistrates transferred the case to the County Court on 14 May 2021 and on 15 June 2021 HHJ Dawson directed Benji be made a party to the proceedings having raised a number of concerns about the section 7 report. In my view the report should never have been ordered in the absence of a fact-finding hearing and the Cafcass officer made herself the arbiter of fact, but in doing so relied on the incident for which the father was found not guilty and which, in the concessions document, was limited to an argument in front of the children. I first heard the matter on 4 October 2021 and ordered a fact-finding hearing in respect to the allegations of the parties. Dr Downs was then instructed by way of a C2 dated 19 October 2021, approved at the hearing in front of DJ Russell on 22 October 2021 to report after the conclusion of the Fact-Finding hearing. On that occasion the father was also given permission to amend his schedule of findings to include an allegation that the mother was unreasonably preventing contact.

The fact-finding hearing took place before HHJ Shaw starting on 22 November 2021.The mother gave evidence on the afternoon of day one and the morning of day two, she had not yet completed her evidence but at 2pm on day two, counsel for the parents raised two matters with the judge, firstly the necessity or otherwise for Leah to give evidence and secondly the possibility of the parties agreeing a factual matrix. The mother’s counsel then drafted the concessions documents, there were ongoing negotiations between the parties and it was approved by the court at 12 noon on the morning of day three as a consent order. The order was never appealed. HHJ Shaw when approving the document expressed his optimism that things could proceed in a positive way in the New Year.

The mother in fact met with Dr Downs only a few days after the hearing. She expressed her happiness at the outcome when discussing the concessions document, ‘To have this was great because it was validation for Leah and Benji that those things did happen.’ Dr Downs filed her report on4 January 2022. I have already considered at length the mother’s subsequent complaints about the report and will not rehearse them here. I have made it clear opinions in her report are irrelevant to the issues of fact I have to decide, there only relevance may be when considering matters of welfare.

When the case came back in front of HHJ Shaw on 17 January 2022a consentorder was agreed as to the re-introduction of contact, it records in relation to the mother, ‘she agreed the principle of supervised direct contact being reinstated but stressing the importance of the preparation work in advance of it commencing.’ The Guardian was to share the bundle and order with two local providers of supervised contact, with further enquires to be made of Tavistock Parenting Unit and alternate therapists alongside further questions to be sent to Dr Downs on essentially practical matters. By 24 February 2022 a contact centre had been agreed as the contact provider and the child’s solicitor was to send the father’s solicitor details of therapists for a referral to be made for family therapy.

Supervised contact was due to start in April 2022. The contact centre notes require careful consideration. The mother has made criticism of the referral form but it was filled in by solicitors and not the father and sets out clearly the Schedule of Findings and Concessions ‘made by the father at the Fact-Finding Hearing.’ It appears that clear parameters had been set for the first contact session on 2 April 2022 at the preparation session. The mother did not follow them, ‘Mum’s arrival at the centre did not follow the arrangements stated and explained at the preparation session. Mum had informed YB that her father was accompanying her in a separate car, this was cleared by YB as long as they parked with mum at the designated spot in the car park ie next to the main entrance. Prior to the contact a large vehicle was noted parked opposite the main entrance to the car park. The car dad was travelling in with his parents passed the vehicle heading to the car park at the far end of the road, which was out of sight of the centre and had been agreed if dad arrived early. YB went out to investigate and a woman, who later was identified as maternal grandmother was walking across the carpark to mum’s car shouting ‘I told you they wouldn’t follow the rules’. YB tried to engage her but she shouted, ‘I’m here to protect my daughter,’ and walked back to her vehicle. YB walked over to where mum was parked with Benji and Leah in the car and explained that she was in the wrong place and needed to follow YB to the other end of the car park. Mum followed to the other end and YB asked her to get out of the car so they could talk. Mum became very distressed and was sobbing. YB reassured mum and gently explained that this was not conducive to Benji feeling safe and feeling able to attend the session as well as this would be in the report..’ I note after the review it is made very clear that in future, ‘Mum to follow the arrangements for arrivals and that if she is accompanied that they also follow the arrangements. That anyone who does accompany mum behaves in a way which is conducive to Benji feeling comfortable and able to attend the sessions without it causing adult family member’s distress.’ It is surprising in light of the behaviours of both the mother and the maternal grandmother, that either deliberately or otherwise nearly sabotaged the contact, that Benji felt able to come into the centre at all. He did and the report notes, ‘Dad and Benji look at each other as he comes in, Dad tells him it is nice to see him, Benji looks across at dad, he tells him he doesn’t want to see him anymore. Benji becomes a little emotional and cries at this point, YB hands him a tissue and he wipes his eyes. Dad apologies for the sad times, Benji looks at dad he appears to listen. Dad becomes a little emotional, Benji repeats ‘I still don’t want to see you anymore.’ YB asks if Benji would like to say goodbye, he says no.’ There is thena discussion between them about Benji’s height, ‘Benji enthusiastically looks at dad and tells him proudly he is 1.35 metres tall,’ it moves on to a discussion about his lost teeth and dad wanting to have happy times with Benji who responded, ‘I don’t want to, I remember the sad times.’ There are thennice moments involving discussions about the shadow puppet made from the tissue, about Spiderman, and the father asks if Benji would like play with the train set, ‘Benji looked at thetoys for a moment and then replied he didn’t want to.’ The meeting was brought to an end and it is recorded, ‘heleaves appearing quite happy with mum and Leah.’ The conclusion in relation to the first contact was, ‘Benji did not present as distressed or show signs of being traumatised whilst in the room speaking to dad and was confident when speaking to him, making eye contact. He was only able to repeat that he didn’t want to see dad and was reluctant to say goodbye when asked twice if he wanted to….When mum was consulted by YB as to how Benji had been after the contact with dad she said he had been fine and hadn’t needed his worry toy that night.’ In my view, bearing in mind not only the domestic abuse Benji had suffered, but also the very unhelpful narrative which he had been given and which was reinforced unwittingly by professionals, the adultification, the passage of time, his exposure to the proceedings and the behaviour of the maternal grandmother and mother before the start of contact, it was a very positive first meeting where he did engage, albeit in brief bursts, with his father and on occasion enthusiastically. He was reluctant to leave whenever asked and showed no fear or distress at his father despite the mother continuously telling professionals and the court he was frightened of him, and on the mother’s account showed no distress whatsoever after the event. Anyone reading the report in light of the history would have optimism for the future. The father told me Benji had not been traumatised, he had been confident, he had been reluctant to say goodbye despite being asked twice and he had felt he was a child on a reset button, he would relax enjoy it and then the clock would go again. However by the review meeting 5 days later on 7 April 2022 Benji was saying he, ‘just didn’t want to see him again,’ when asked about how he felt about seeing him he said, ‘I did feel ok I just don’t want to see him,' and when asked if he felt nervous he said, ‘Well I did but not about seeing him just about what he might do.’ Sadly it appears he shut down in the intervening days. On 16 April 2022 a virtual session was planned but Benji would not get out of the car, on the mother’s suggestion he dictated a letter to the contact centre, ‘I don’t want to see you again because of all the bad stuff you used to do. That you make me feel worried because I just remember all the bad stuff. I don’t want to have good memories because all the memories I have are bad and I don’t think we can have good ones.’ The mantra of the letter was reeated in the review session 9 days before. The contact centre notes record, ‘Benji is a very confident and intelligent child who is able to communicate clearly and directly but is very reluctant to expand on his feelings about his dad. The concern is Benji won’t use the sessions to express or explore his feelings directly to dad in a supportive setting. A further concern that Benji is aware of the distress that the situation is causing mum and being protective. Mum with support from practitioners to actively encourage Benji to attend the sessions.’ A further virtual session took place on 30 April 2022, Benji sat on the lobby floor holding his knees close to him with tears on cheeks and refused to go in. They noted, ‘Benji is aware of the historic conflict and that this hasn’t been resolved and his narrative is dad is to blame. Benji doesn’t portray any ambivalence about his attitude to contact and presents this is a justified reaction’. They notethe concern, ‘Benji’s future wellbeing around his culture and identity are a concern and how he would independently explore this without a relationship with his dad and extended family.’

HHJ Shaw again heard the matter on 4 May 2022, by then the difficulties in progressing contact were evident, the order records the parties’ agreement that Benji would be taken to contact by an identified contact centre worker either from home or school and the centre were given permission to arrange contact away from the centre. The parties also agreed to family therapy.

Sadly the contact continued to be unsuccessful in the three further organised sessions on 19 May, 28 May and 31 May 2022. The first virtual session was with Benji at home, ‘Benji is sitting on the sofa next to mum on the laptop, there is a discussion about a visit out to somewhere he will enjoy and that we will be meeting Daddy there. Benji continues to smile, YB explains that we will be talking to Mummy to find an activity but we don’t know where it will be yet, that she and YA will pick him up to take him out and that Daddy will be there too….YB says she will have a chat with Mum and we will decide what we will do, YB asks if that is ok, Benji smiles and says yes.’ The call ends and there is a second call moments after when the mother explains he became upset after the call as he hadn’t realised it was an activity with daddy, and once he is passed the laptop he makes it clear he will not engage. There is then a review visit at the centre on 28 May 2022 where he initially refuses to get out of the car ‘but does not appear upset.’ He does in fact go into the centre and looks at some photos his father has sent, ‘he comments they are at home, he names the toys he has, he says that’s Daddima, there is a video he says he has seen the pictures before and the pass the parcel one is missing. He plays as he talks and does not appear affected by the pictures at all.’He is told his father has written him a letter and says ‘what is it’ YB suggests she reads it, ‘Firstly there is a joke between them, dad calling Benji another name, Benji says that is my nickname, he asks to see how dad had spelt it, saying it was spelt wrong and he tells the correct way of spelling it. Benji continued to play and listen with no sign of upset.’

Then a visit to the park is planned for 31 May 2022 but on arrival to collect him the workers are told, ‘I’m not going.’ They comment that when the subject of seeing the father is raised he states, ‘I don’t want to see him’ very clearly and will repeat it but when a practitioner becomes curious Benji isn’t able/willing to elaborate or share contextual detail that would corroborate his feelings towards dad…We have acknowledged Benji’s views but equally have expressed that there are some decisions adults need to make. The main concern regarding Benji’s future wellbeing is that without someone independent providing an opportunity for Benji to explore his feelings about his relationship with his dad and not keeping a ‘door open’ will have a negative impact on his relationships. Benji’s cultural identity also needs to be promoted.’

It is of note the mother told the Guardian, as recorded in her final analysis, she was extremely positive about the workers YB and YA, ‘She felt that they could have done no more. Mother accepted that at the time she felt that they had pushed Benji too far and persevered perhaps more than was in Benji’s best interests. However, with hindsight she was glad that they had done so as she felt there could be no criticism therefore that she had not fully engaged in this process.’ I am afraid I disagree she fully engaged in the process.It is correct she took Benji to the centre when required, she joined the virtual contact from her home and she allowed the workers access to him in her home, however that was the limit of it. It is clear she did not follow the rules on the first occasion, the behaviour of the maternal grandmother showed Benji the father was someone to be feared and protection was needed, and the mother made clear to Benji her own feelings by her failure to contain her distress. I am also unsure why Leah was ever brought to the centre bearing in mind her own experiences as a victim of domestic abuse and her declared feelings about the father and his family. It is also evident that by the time of the first review session Benji had shut down and thereafter repeated the same mantra each time, the workers note he repeats again and again the same phrases, but despite being an intelligent articulate child is unable to elaborate, which rather suggests he doesn’t know the reason why he is saying what he does, instead it is learned behaviour. At no time did he show fear, either with his father, who he was reluctant to leave, or when discussing the photographs, which suggests to me that this is not a child afraid of his father, but one who feels he either cannot have a relationship with him or cannot allow himself to do so. Benji’s behaviour was very much a reflection of the behaviour seen by Dr Downs when he was looking at pictures of his father and paternal grandparents, she described no signs of distress and him as ‘animated smiling and laughing as he recognised other family members.’ She said she felt she was seeing the ‘real Benji .’ It was very apparent to me that on the 19 May 2022 in the video call the workers were very careful to explain to Benji that they were going to take him out and ‘meet daddy there,’ they do this twice, he smiles throughout and when asked if this is ok he says ‘yes.’ Within moments of the call ending the mother calls them back saying the child did not realise it was an activity with daddy and then when asked by the workers he is clear he will not engage. I do not believe for a moment he did not understand, the mother has been telling professionals that he has been sufficiently competent to make his own decisions from the age of 5 years, I have no doubt at all in those moments he was influenced to change his mind. Sadly, in light of all I have seen and heard, and in light of my assessment of the mother, I have little doubt not only that she did not give Benji emotional permission to engage with the contact process but that she undermined it. I am supported in that by what she told a further agency when seeking therapy for Benji which rather suggests she never really agreed to it in the first place.It however is of note as long ago as 2022 professionals were raising concerns not only about the mother’s ability to support Benji but also the risks for him going forward if the current situation continued. The Guardian notes in her position statement of 8 July 2022, ‘It is noteworthy the comments in respect of mother and her ability to be supportive to Benji going forward despite her indications within the court process that she is.’

In light of the failure of the contact the matter returned to court on 11 July 2022, it was again agreed between the parties a child and family psychologist would be engaged to provide family therapy. The father’s position has always been the mother agreed the therapy, he paid for it, he attended his own appointment and was keen for it to proceed, and it was only the day before the mother’s appointment did he learn from the psychologist’s administrative staff that the mother was not going to attend. It seems to me any argument in relation to unreasonable litigation conduct by the mother really starts here. It needs to be seen in context. The first inkling of concern came when the Guardian out of the blue received an email from the Health Visitor on 16 February 2022, ‘mum, shared recently that the courts advised that she be involved in family therapy moving forward, and this would involve her being in the same room as her ex-partner. As Mum reports her ex-partner as being the perpetrator of domestic abuse towards her this shedsconcern for her wellbeing. I feel alarmed that Benji would equally be exposed to this therapy.I feel Mum is being backed into a corner to follow the courts advice but question how this can be seen to be a positive step.I am not sure if this information is something you can act on or advise on as I know the case is sitting in the legal arena. I just felt I needed to express my concern.’ I have already noted how the professional boundaries had become blurred between the mother and professionals, including the Health Visitor, and how she had been drawn into the legal proceedings by the mother and specifically into her corner. She had already written to the Local Authority, arguably seeking to interfere with the court process, and it was evident this was again the situation. It was clearly at the behest of the mother as the Guardian notes in her Position Statement dated 8 July 2022, ‘The Guardian was particularly concerned that again the issue of third parties had been raised as to their involvement with Benji- with mother’s representatives raising queries as to whether the Guardian had been contacted by the Health Visitor the Local Authority and the school.’ The mother told the court the Health Visitor’s concerns were that the family therapist’s expertise was in high conflict parenting and not domesticabuse, allbeit that clearly is not what she told the Guardian. In any event the therapist has a wide expertise, including domestic abuse and would, I have no doubt, have put in place appropriate arrangements taking the background into account, it was evident she had already offered separate appointments to the parties, and not as suggested ones that would ‘involve them beingin the same room’ however that email is a further example of how professional boundaries had become blurred and the mother brings them onside. I struggle to understand how an email sent on 16 February 2022 could possibly be used as the reason therapy was cancelled, the day before it was due to start in August 2022. In the intervening period there had been two court hearings, the mother was legally represented, and on both occasions she had consented to the family therapy. In my judgment the views of the Health Visitor were simply used as a shield behind which the mother wished to hide. I note by now a further four months had passed without any direct or indirect contact between Benji and his father.

The mother’s actions need to be considered in the context of what was happening in her life at that time. Her legal aid had come to an end in circumstances where she had rekindled her relationship with Charlie and he and Jake were in the process of moving from Ireland to live with her and the children. They began to cohabit from September 2022, albeit she did not update the father of this until November 2022 through her solicitors. She changed solicitors again to her current solicitors and to alternate counsel, funded it seems by Charlie. It has been suggested on behalf of the father that these changes have only fuelled the difficulties in the case. It is correct, on one perspective, he has good reason to be less than charitable towards the father, the father was the man his then wife had an affair with, thus breaking up his family, the father was the man who supported the mother when there were disagreements in contact arrangements between them, and the father was the man who was emotionally abusive by way of the concessions document to his daughter Leah. He makes his displeasure clear in his email to the maternal grandmother, ‘I am still concerned that the father has not answered for the way he has treated Leah..’ I have not heard from Charlie, he is clearly a kind and loving stepfather to Benji who calls him ‘dad’, however it is very difficult to resist the submission that since August 2022 this litigation has taken a far from linear path and funded by him by way of a drawdown of his pension. I noted in July 2024 what I considered to be the obscene amount of money spent on this litigation which has now increased significantly. In circumstances where the mother’s family live in rented property, as counsel for the father pointed out, that sum could buy outright an extremely nice family home in Norfolk. The mother said in her evidence it was just ‘the cost,’ I disagree, it has been her choice to seek representation from outside the area at a much higher cost than locally, and the applications she has made, particularly this year, have hugely increased the expenditure for all. Whilst I appreciate her viewpoint is she is only doing what is necessary to protect her son, the alternate one may be she has lost all perspective on the matter, and rather than deal with the issues head on she has embarked on a course of conduct designed to detract from the main issue, namely Benji’s welfare, albeit seen in the context of the background of domestic abuse, and to delay the court from making a welfare determination.

The mother thereafter made a number of applications dated 4 August 2022; for a stay, for the father to attend a DAPP, for a psychiatric assessment of herself and for the recusal of HHJ Shaw and DJ Russell. The order of HHJ Shaw on 21 September 2022 records the following, ‘Upon the mother confirming to the court at this hearing she does not make an application to reopen the findings of fact hearing, Upon the mother not pursuing a stay of the proceedings but considering that case management moving forward is appropriate, and upon the court noting mother does not feel able to agree any form of direct or indirect contact or to participate in family therapy at this stage without further assessment.’ Theorder also sets out the fact the court sought clarity as to what was sent to Dr Downs for the purposes of her completing her first report, the parties were to each file impact statements, skeleton arguments were to be filed to deal with alleged deficiencies in respect of Dr Downs report, including questions that should have gone to her following the admissions of domestic abuse pursuant to PD12J including paragraphs 36 and 37, and whether further questions would suffice and if not whether a psychologist or psychiatrist should be instructed with CV’s timescales and cost. The father noted that the mother was given the opportunity to re-open the fact-finding hearing by the judge on that occasion and declined. She confirmed her approach in her impact statement dated 19 October 2022, ‘I do not intend to go behind that admissions document. I do not want to have another fact-finding hearing so I accept that by going forward I will only be able to rely on the instances of abuse to which the father admitted.’

The father in his impact statement dated 3 October 2022 stated, ‘I fully acknowledge the frightening and upsetting impact these incidents would have on the 1st Respondent Leah and Benji…With regard to the 1^st Respondent I acknowledge the physical incidents will have caused her to be both anxious and fearful, at the time and subsequently, of both my reaction and equally her safety and well-being as well as that of the children. I appreciate this has had an emotional impact on her as well.’ He goes through the impact of each of the incidents on her and the children and says, ‘I would finally wish to unreservedly offer my full and sincere apologies to the 1st Respondent Leah and Benji regarding my behaviourtowards them, and the impact this has had on them. I hope in time they will forgive me and accept that I will never behave in such manner again.’ I have already said in my assessment of the father I am satisfied he accepts full responsibility for his behaviour and has insight into and remorse for the impact of his behaviour on the mother and children.

In those circumstances, on 31 October 2022 the court went down the route of instructing Dr Van Velsen to complete a psychiatric assessment of both parties and a risk assessment of the father, with further questions to be sent to Dr Downs following Dr Van Velsen’s report. Benji then undertook 6 sessions of therapy with CAMHS. There is considerable dispute as to why this work was not communicated to the father at the hearing on 31 October 2022, with the mother explaining her counsel told the Guardian but had not been able to tell the father’s team, she had not thought there was any urgency and they were just still on the waiting list, and was surprised when on 3 November 2022 she was told he could start the following week, she then informed the father via his solicitors accordingly. I do not need to make a determination about those matters however it is not without relevance she had been actively seeking therapy for him through other agencies since 30 September 2022, the narrative she gave them is of note, however she was also was telling the Guardian in relation to family therapy, in her position statement dated 30 October 2022 at around the same time, ‘Mum said that there was nothing wrong with Benji his feelings were perfectly understandable so why would he needtherapy to try and change him.’ The covering letter from CAMHS sets out the work done and the drawings he competed are in the bundle. They include pictures of ‘worries father used to do’, a figure locked in prison, figures dead on the floor, a picture saying ‘my father has finally gone’ and pictures of someone who has exploded with the words ‘boom and he’s gone.’ It is striking the way in which he depicts his father in those therapy drawings, it bears no relation to the way he reacted, both when he saw him 6 months previously in person and by way of looking at the photographs of him and the paternal family. It is perhaps of relevance that by this stage Benji was living in a new family unit that included his mother, Leah, Jake and Charlie. He was still not having any contact with his father or paternal family, either direct or indirect.

Dr Van Velsen reported on 15 December 2022. She did not consider the father’s presentation or conduct precluded contact; she recommended family therapy with an organisation such as the Anna Freud Centre. She also recommended indirect contact. On 6 January 2023 the father made an application for a transfer of residence.

The matter came back before the court on 13 March 2023, His Honour Judge Shaw made an order that Benji should have no further therapy without permission of the court or agreement in writing between the parties as a result of the disputed CAMHS work. It was agreed the Guardian was to make enquiries of the Anna Freud Centre or alternate local therapists and the father was to commence indirect contact with Benji. He listed the case for a Pre Trial Review on 30 May 2023 and for a final hearing to commence in August 2023. The father wrote a letter to Benji on 24 April 2023 for the first time since the proceedings had started, it was an entirely appropriate and carefully drafted letter, Benji wrote a letter to his father in response telling him he was not reading his questions, ‘because I don’t care what you say and I’m happy without you, now I have another dad, because I don’t like you….. I want you to go away for ever’. The father wrote a further very empathetic letter back. The Guardian saw Benji on 12 May 2023, between the two pieces of correspondence sent by the father, he was 7 at the time, he was confident to talk to the Guardian, he was very clear he had not wanted the letter and was not interested in anything that his father said, ‘Benji told the Guardian that his father had done mean things to him and that he had not changed. He said people could not change in a short time like this.’ I note the mother herself similarly told the Guardian in the meeting for the October 2022 hearing that therapy would not benefit the father as he was ‘stuckin his ways.’ It is important to note a number of things; his views as expressed to the Guardian are not reflective of the way he reacted when he actually met his father a year or so before, he showed no ambivalence at all when talking about the father, he said he was, ‘tired and annoyed saying this over and over to people,’ his language was very adult and his words, in my view, were a reflection of what his mother had said in the meeting with the Guardian prior to the October 2022 hearing. Despite his mother emphasising to the court she wants him to be a polite little boy, she had no difficulty at all when he was impolite both in his letters to his father and in discussions about him.

At the hearing on 30 May 2023 before HHJ Shaw the mother proposed a therapist and co-parenting coach to work with the parties separately. He directed a Professionals meeting to ‘address the extent to which Benji is to be involved in the proposed therapeutic work.’ He listed a further Pre Trial Review on 23 June 2023 and Final Hearing commencing 13 November 2023 in front of myself. On the same day the paternal grandparents’ application dated 26 May 2023 was issued for leave to apply for a contact order, His Honour Judge Shaw directed it to be heard by myself at the Pre Trial Review. On that occasion, which was the first time I had heard the matter since I had directed a Fact-Finding hearing back in 2021, I made directions for the filing of evidence in support of the paternal grandparents’ application and gave directions to ensure the final hearing would proceed in November 2023. On 21 July 2023 I ultimately adjourned the paternal grandparents’ application, following the advice of the experts given in the Professionals Meeting, to allow family therapy the best chance of success, but on the basis it was agreed indirect contact should commence with Benji along the lines of the father’s indirect contact, and that they may be involved in the family therapy if appropriate. Both the Pre Trial Review and the final hearing were adjourned by consent on the basis the family therapy was underway.

A child therapist and parenting coach were chosen by the parents to undertake the therapeutic work, in the Professionals meeting discussions were had as to how the work was to be undertaken, with a view to involving Benji at the appropriate juncture, with Dr Van Velsen to speak to them and to provide an update for the court in readiness for the hearing in February 2024. However, the court received an unsolicited report direct from the therapists in December 2023 in which they expressed their view that the proceedings should be stayed for 12 months, a DAPP program should be sourced for the father, and they made wide ranging criticisms of Dr Downs’ report, which in many ways echoed those the mother had been making since Autumn 2022.

It is evident the therapy never really got off the ground, it is difficult not to see it as a repeat of what had happened previously in terms of treating professionals, namely the boundaries become blurred, and they are drawn into the mother’s narrative and thus her corner, not least because they told Dr Van Velsen they felt there was more that had happened than she had felt able to say in court, suggesting an almost paternalistic stance. Dr Van Velsen disagreed with their proposal for a stay, ‘I have some concerns about this reinforcing the status quo’ she expanded on this in her live evidence and made it clear, ‘she had never had it suggested before in any case she had done, in her view it would be game over reinforcing the status quo.’ The mother’s solicitors then wrote to them asking their views as to the indicators for Benji to be in a position to have contact to which they responded in February 2024. The Guardian notes at page 13 of her final analysis, ‘It is not clear how the second document referred to came about as usually, in my experience, reports provided do not go beyond references to attendance and engagement in therapeutic sessions.’ I have no doubt the solicitor’s letter was sent on the mother’s instructions, it supports the submissions made on behalf of the father, that her behaviour actively seeks to push professional boundaries to ensure alignment with her own narrative. It is of note that throughout this time Benji was refusing all indirect contact from both his father and his paternal grandparents, whether it be by way of cards, letters or presents. I have looked carefully at what has been sent, particularly by the grandparents, who in my view have never done anything for Benji to be upset or concerned about, they are lovely communications directed to his interests, as are the gifts, any child in my view would be delighted to receive them. The mother has told the court he rejects them and they are left in a cupboard. The Guardian said she had never come across it in any other case. In my view it is evidence of his wholescale rejection of the paternal family which is complete and without ambivalence.

The communications on the Our Family Wizard App have taken up much time in the hearing. I have considered them in detail. When it was set up, at the outset of the therapy, it was with the intention it would lead to co-parenting, so it is perhaps unsurprising the frequency of the communications would be difficult for both parties. A framework was set by the therapists, I am told the communications were not to include anything inflammatory, on that basis the mother, in my view, breached it in three of the first four communications, there was no need to make references to what Benji and Charlie did together; going to the driving range, baking, and in particular in the bundle where she says, ‘Bedtimes are Benji’s favourite time, he calls this ‘snuggle time’ with Charlie and I’. The father, to his credit, did not react and when he started communicating his exchanges were pleasant and directed towards learning about his son. The mother’s replies were by contrast cold and perfunctory, by way of example, she did not use his name heading the emails ‘Information’ or she simply gave numbered responses. She ignored his questions about Diwali celebrations and friends’ names. There came a point she asked him to call her by her full name, which he did immediately, the issue of the receipt of gifts then becomes contentious and she reminds him, ‘please refer to the instructions for the therapeutic process’. The issue of gifts arises again, he asks her politely to ‘address your messages to me by my full name in the same way I have always addressed my messages to you as a common courtesy’ and he asks her to respond to missed queries, at which point she reminds him of the three question rule and says she will not name any more friends on the Guardian’s advice, he persists in asking more information and she says, ‘Children’s names will not beprovided this is not appropriate or relevant.’ He then asks her about what she does to support his cultural identity and ‘Iwould ask what you do to ensure he can participate in this’ she responds by saying, ‘I am happy to continue providing updates however if this behaviour continues I will no longer engage in this app as a channel and the updates to you will need to be provided in a differentway.’ The father indicates he has received a letter about Benji having panic attacks and queries why it was not raised on the app and thereafter it continues in the same vein.

In cross examination, clearly on instructions, it was constantly put to the father that he was ‘case-building.’ I am satisfied there is no basis to such a suggestion at all, he was simply a father who after a 3 year plus hiatus, was desperate for information about his son, he described himself very aptly as, ‘ a man in the desert trying to make do with a thimble of water.’ It was suggested he came across as self-entitled, I didn’t find his communications to be like that at all. I accept there were many occasions when his 3 questions expanded into more, and in that sense he did not comply with the framework, but they were never unreasonable or uncourteous, and whilst he did repeat questions, it was because the mother had failed to answer them. The mother objected on numerous occasions to questions about Benji’s friends, I have to say I have no idea why, because it was quite clear the father was simply trying to build up a picture of Benji’s life, what he did and with whom, in the hope of having a point of reference if they ever met, it was not as she tried to suggest in live evidence ‘ a safeguarding matter’. She also objected to questions about activities such as Diwali and his reaction to the receipt of presents, it might have been wise to desist at a certain point, and perhaps his tone could have been softer on occasion, but equally the mother’s responses could be said to be obstructive, and her tone hostile on occasion and it could be said the issues she became most agitated about, namely the receipt of presents and cultural identity, are the matters she has not promoted and thus she is very defensive about. She often reminded the father of the framework and said on one occasion she was going to remove herself from the app. I understand she has in fact now done that, leaving once again no avenue for information between the parties in respect of their son. Dr Van Velsen, in my view, got it absolutely right when she said, accepting that she not seen the communications, ‘you could say the reason for the father becoming frustrated is because it has gone on so long, if he had been having contact for the last 2-3 years we would not be in the position we are now.’

The matter next came in front of myself on 9 February 2024 to re-list the welfare hearing. The Position Statement filed by solicitors on behalf of the mother on 6 February 2024 relied on the views of the therapist for the proceedings to be Stayed and made no mention of her wanting to re-open the fact-finding hearing. The position statement filed by her counsel Ms Gartland KC, which was only provided to the court during the hearing, sought in turn for the court to immediately dismiss the proceedings, alternatively for a Stay of 12 months and as a fallback, for the Fact-Finding hearing to be re-opened. It is of note it was 27 months after it was compromised, 17 months after confirming to the court she did not want to re-open it, the court having given her the opportunity to do so and 16 months after she filed a definite statement that she did not wish to do so. She also continued to vigorously oppose the joinder of the paternal grandparents. I refused her applications for immediate dismissal or for a Stay, gave leave to the paternal grandparents to pursue their application and joined them to the proceedings and listed the matter for a welfare hearing, with the intention at that stage to deal with issue of re-opening the Fact-Finding hearing as a preliminary matter at the start of the welfare hearing, in an attempt to limit court time and cost.

However the mother then made a Re W application for Benji to give evidence at any re-opened Fact-Finding hearing, which necessitated both that application and the mother’s application to re-open the Fact-Finding, to be listed as a discrete hearing, to prevent the welfare hearing being derailed. It was extremely difficult to list the hearing, not least due to the lack of availability of her new counsel, Mr Bagchi KC, and I moved another hearing to allow me to hear the application over the course of 2 days. On 2 July 2024 I dismissed both applications with the decision on costs reserved to follow on from this hearing. In that judgement I noted that in her position statement for the hearing on 9 February 2024 she stated that she shared the therapists’ concerns that the court system is, ‘adding to the mental health troubles of the child’ and referenced a letter sent to the parties on 31 January 2024 which detailed he had had a panic attack at school on 30 January 2024 and one at home two weeks earlier. I noted, ‘I struggle to see how such a description fits with her application for him to give evidence.’ She told the court it was so Benji could share his experiences and the court could hear his way of talking and language, it was not to harm him. However, having now read the account of what I consider to be Benji’s ‘performance’ to the Guardian in August 2024, my concerns as to the motivation for her application have only multiplied.

It appears, following that hearing, she sought on two occasions, through solicitors, for Cafcass to complete Safeguarding checks on the paternal grandparents, despite me making it clear at both the February and July 2024 hearings, in light of the fact they run Ofsted inspected nurseries and have up to date DBS checks, it was not necessary. She thereafter proposed their application be stayed.

She then made proposals on 22 July 2024 for the father to have contact with Benji, on the basis the matter would be taken out of the court arena, it involved a joint letter from the parents to Benji explaining they have agreed it is important for Benji to have relationship with his father, a video from the father apologising for his behaviour, face to face online contact for Benji to ask questions of his father, one session followed by a further three sessions, a child therapist to be re-engaged to deal with Benji’s trauma, monthly updates via OFW and for father to ask 5 questions and work with his therapist on the communications on the basis they, ‘tend towards the critical rather than being positive and supportive’, for himto consider a DAPP and if all goes well, a move to supervised contact with a family member present. She also proposed a stay of the grandparents’ application. I note she told the Guardian when discussing the proposals and how the offer had been headed, ‘her solicitor had told her to put this in following the comments in court, something about actions speaking louder than words but she could not remember exactly. She said that she sometimes wishes there were no lawyers as things get written that she has not said.’

The Guardian then met the mother and Benji for the purposes of her final analysis. Benji was seen on 21 August 2024. She told the court that the mother had said Benji was reluctant to meet her and she had expected an anxious child. It is clear from what followed he was not. He was as far from the anxious/fearful child the mother had described in the papers as was possible to imagine. He was angry forthright confrontational belligerent and frankly just rude, even to the extent of shouting at the Guardian. It is important to remember he had not yet had his 9^th birthday, he was still only 8 years of age, I would not expect a child of his age to be so discourteous to a professional, starting off with telling her in an angry voice that he did not want to come to the office as it was a new place. I bear in mind what he said to Action for Children in 2021 following his meeting with the first Cafcass officer for her to complete her report, namely he had not done well enough, I note the mother told the Guardian, ‘he was upset and worried if the meeting did not go well then I would say that he needs to see his father and that is what would happen,’ clearly he was leaving nothing to chance this time and I can only describe what followed as a performance, whereby he wound himself up to such an extent he was pacing the room by the end of 15 minutes. He went on to say ‘…I don’t care about him I don’t like him its because of him I can’t enjoy things he has ruined my life.’ He was reminded he had not seen his father for a long time he said, ‘that makes no difference, I still have to think about him and I don’t want to ever have to think about him, this has been going on way too long and it’s way too much for a 9 year old to deal with. I am not going to see him I can do what I want, and you can’t make me go, I can make decisions and I should be listened to. I should have a voice.’ When he was reminded he was 9 and whilst he was listened to adults made the decisions in his best interests, ‘Benji became challenging and told me in an angry voice, ‘I have a voice and need to be listened to.’ When it was suggested the father did not want to upset him he shouted at the Guardian, ‘Well then tell him to shut up, he needs to shut up. Why does he keep making me think about this, what happened and him. I won’t see him and you can’t make me I just won’t.’ She then said she met with someone else yesterday, Benji said, ‘yes the grandparents,’ he said, ‘they are on his side..if they know what happened and what he has done, then why are they on his side.. I want to be free of these horrible people – all of them. I won’t see them, they are on his side. That stupid man who ruined my life and they brought him up.’ When he was reminded of photos she had seen them of them together he said, ‘I don’t want to see these horrible people’.

I do not need the assistance of an expert to be able to say, irrespective of how bright and articulate he is, the language he used is extremely adult, but more than that it mirrors the language used by his mother as long back as 2020 and has a scripted and rehearsed quality to it. The attitude he has shown towards his grandparents, who have never been anything other than loving and kind towards him, again mirrors the mother’s language but also her antipathy and view that they are ‘ganging up’ on her as one unit and echoes how she has described the courtroom for her, ‘lots of voices in here.’ I note he used the exact same phrase to describe them, ‘the grandparents’ as the mother did in the OFW communications, ‘Benji asked who they were from and I told him first it was the grandparents.’ Furthermore, the mother’s case as put to the paternal grandmother in cross examination was they knew what was going on within the marriage and should have stopped him, and furthermore his behaviour was learned growing up. There was an duplication of those views in what she told the father, via the OFW communications, as to Benji’s response to the Easter eggs the paternal grandparents had sent, ‘..If they cared they would have stopped him they are his mum and dad..’ it is therefore of significance Benji told the Guardian in the August 2024 meeting, ‘if they know what happened and what he has done then why are theyon his side,’ and ‘that stupid man who ruined my life and they brought him up.’ His presentation, which can only be described as alarming, should be seen in light of the fact no professional in these proceedings has seen him for the last 15 months and he has refused all indirect contact with the parental family. I reject it as simply a result of increased maturity, he is still barely 9 years of age. It is of note what the mother said in her statement filed in opposition to the paternal grandparents’ application over a year ago, ‘Benji is likely to infer that any arranged time with his PGPS at this point in time has been organised so as to engineer time with his father.’ I am unsurprised that is now his view.In those 15 months he has gone from a child who was happy to look at photos of his paternal grandparents, whether with Dr Downs or the contact centre, smiling and laughing, to one who almost word for word is reflecting the views of the mother about them. The most disturbing part of the meeting is that he showed absolutely no guilt or ambivalence in the way he spoke about them, he views them as entirely bad and has wholly rejected them. In my judgment, Benji’s behaviour in this interview is a clear result of many years of manipulation by the mother, going back to May 2020, and represents the result of her adultification of the child going back to the age of 5 years, ‘I am not going to see him I can do what I want, and you can’t make me go, I can make decisions and I should be listened to..’ My view on this is supported by the fact it was very evident the mother had no concerns about his appalling behaviour in the meeting, nor the way he spoke about his father or the paternal grandparents, she made no attempt to correct his rude and defiant behaviour whatsoever, despite being told at the end of the meeting what had been said and his behaviour being more than apparent, the Guardian in her final analysis noted, ‘as I did this Benji was pacing around the room. He would occasionally add to the conversation and reaffirm how he felt.’ I do not believe for a moment she would allow him to behave in such a way outside the issues sounding the paternal family, and furthermore Benji I am told is an otherwise compliant child, and yet here he is failing to recognise the authority of professionals and indeed the court.

In the mother’s meeting with the Guardian she explained that ‘if there is a final hearing she will lose everything, Charlie’s entire pension will be gone’ albeit she qualified that in her live evidence, she was very appreciative of the work of the Guardian and asked her to oversee the plan for contact with the father going forward and was critical of her lawyers. She was highly negative about the paternal grandparents but said ‘she would not have a problem if it was supervised but that Benji is not positive about them and sees them as a unit with his father.’ It was subsequent to that meeting she made proposals for contact between Benji and the paternal grandparents on 28 August 2024 .

In light of the mother’s comments to the Guardian, it was therefore a considerable surprise when at 15:59pm the day before the start of the welfare hearing, the court and the parties received her application to adjourn the hearing and transfer it to High Court level, with the accompanying statement making a raft of criticisms against Dr Downs, the father and the court alongside very serious allegations against the Guardian and Cafcass, which had it been granted, would have added months if not years of further delay before any welfare determination, hugely increased the costs and inevitably would have generated further wasted costs application from the other parties. It was pointed out on behalf of the father it was the third application this year which would have the effect, if granted, of derailing the court for the first time in more than four years from hearing the evidence in the case and making a welfare determination, it is difficult to look at her behaviour in any other way.

On dismissal of her application, her position in relation to the father was in direct opposition to her recent proposal, namely for no contact direct or indirect, for her to provide a one-way monthly update by email and for a section 91(14) order for 5 years. Her position statement stated it was unclear why the paternal grandparents remained parties and she hoped to resolve their application prior to the hearing and for them to be discharged, but otherwise an agreement, ‘to promote contact in accordance with Benji’s wishes and feelings.’ Those positions are also in direct opposition to her final statement where she states she has made contact proposals in respect of both the father and paternal grandparents, with no suggestion they had been withdrawn, and says, ‘Benjishould know his father’ and proposes an independent social worker to assist with the grandparents’ contact. I note it was said in the father’s position statement for this hearing, ‘These offers exposed the mother’s arbitrary approach to Benji’s welfare and that her concerns over contact have not been that strongly held in any event (unless her plan was to end proceedings via hollow promises and then simply renege.)’ I am afraid it is impossible to conclude other than her litigation conduct, certainly since February of this year, has been both unreasonable and unfathomable. That therefore is my holistic analysis of the chronology of how this little boy has come to be in the situation he is now.

I now return to the factual issues I must determine namely;

The first factual matter therefore I must consider is whether there has been an unreasonable prevention of contact/alienating behaviours, it was submitted on behalf of the mother that no schedule of allegations contrary to Article 6 and Article 8 has ever been filed and her Position Statement notes, ‘It is not procedurally proper for F to ‘throw the kitchen sink at M with a copy and paste allegations of parental alienation from any parental allegation document and then seek for something to stick against her.’ The father made this allegation as long ago as 22 October 2021, the order of DJ Russell gave him permission to file his schedule of facts to be found by not later than 27.10.2021, ‘to include the allegation, ‘In all the circumstances of the case the respondent mother has unreasonably prevented contact both direct and indirect between Benji and his father and the paternal family’ and he was given permission to file a statement in support ‘of his schedule of facts to be found’ by the same date. The allegation was not compromised at the Fact-Finding hearing, and it was agreed it was a welfare matter to be determined by the court. It was never envisaged there would be a schedule of allegations, but rather they would be contained in a statement, which he filed in accordance with the order, and which the mother replied to as long ago as 3.11.20212. His most recent statement sets out very clearly what he is saying about this allegation and I am satisfied she is well aware of his case on this and has had every opportunity over the last 3 years to respond and she has done so. In circumstances where the father has not seen the mother since April 2020, and the child only once for 15 minutes during the last four and a half years, and knows nothing of their life, it would be impossible for him to set out, as sought, a list of times dates and actions. I further note that whilst Scott Schedules were once well endorsed by the courts as a method of pleading allegations of domestic abuse, a number of authorities have recently drawn attention to their limitations, particularly when considering coercive control; F v M (2021) EWFC 4 Hayden J and GK v P (2021) EWFC 106 where Peel J raised concern at the way in which Scott Schedules pleaded patterns of controlling behaviour in an incident by incident way and was concerned the court deprives itself of a holistic view of the behaviour and risks some incidents being overlooked. I appreciate an allegation of unreasonably preventing contact/alienating behaviour is not the same as coercive and controlling behaviour, but it is in my view equally difficult to categorise in a Scott Schedule, particularly when it is alleged to have been going on over many years and the court needs to consider in a holistic way. The father’s most recent statement sets out very clearly in numbered paragraphs with all the relevant evidence attached his case on this issue, I therefore reject any suggestion the mother does not know the case being alleged against her.

As I acknowledged in July 2024, and throughout the welfare hearing and this judgement, the mother Leah and Benji are all victims of Domestic Abuse in accordance with the 2021 Act at the hands of the father. However, Leah and Benji are also victims of Domestic Abuse in accordance with the 2021 Act at the hands of both parents by way of the mother’s concessions at iv. and v. of the schedule.

It has been submitted on behalf of the mother, that allegations of unreasonable prevention of contact/alienating behaviour often go hand in hand with allegations and/or findings of domestic abuse. I accept that entirely. I also accept the proposition that, in certain circumstances, such allegations can amount to coercive and controlling behaviour, and/or DARVO. I do not however accept that is always the case, or that domestic abuse and unreasonable prevention of contact/alienating behaviour are always mutually exclusive. I also do not accept that in every case where there has been domestic violence it would be appropriate for there to be no contact ever again, if that were the situation PD12J would not need to exist. I consider every case must be looked at very carefully on its own merits. By taking the time to review matters holistically and chronologically I am satisfied I have been able to do that.

In terms of the first factual matter I have to determine, I am not satisfied Benji is presenting with a justified and/or proportionate rejection of his father and/or paternal grandparents in light of his lived experiences. I accept Benji is a victim of domestic abuse, and that those experiences will have been unpleasant and frightening for him and further, he is likely to have memories of them. However, at the point of separation he also had positive memories of his father, the schedule of concessions did not represent his whole life experience with him, and he also had entirely positive memories of his paternal grandparents, who had done nothing but love him and with whom he shared a strong bond. These bonds were reflected in the good quality video contact that took place daily from 11 April 2020 to 7 May 2020, and there is no doubt, at that stage, the mother recognised those relationships and supported the contact.

Following the move to Norfolk in May 2020, her attitude changed entirely, and I am satisfied she has unreasonably prevented contact/demonstrated alienating behaviours in relation to Benji’s relationship with his father and the paternal grandparents since that time in the following ways:

I should make it clear, for the purposes of clarity, I have considered whether there can be other reasons for Benji’s presenting behaviour, short of the alienating behaviours and taking into account the domestic abuse he clearly suffered, whether it be alignment to protect a victim parent, anger at his father for his experiences, unconscious leakage, splitting as suggested by the mother as a result of domestic abuse and all the other reasons raised in these proceedings, I am satisfied it is as I have outlined above. In addition, I consider his entrenched position has not been assisted by the following matters:

The net effect for Benji of what has happened was summed up by the Guardian who described it as ‘catastrophic’ and he has sadly lost contact with every single member of his paternal family as a result.

In respect to the second factual matter I must determine, I reject any suggestion that the father’s behaviour as alleged by the mother amounts to ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’ and/or DARVO. I am satisfied both his original and subsequent application within these proceeding, alongside the fact he has raised the issue of alienating behaviours, which I have found proven, all came from a place of wanting the absolute best for his son and not to ‘torment and frighten themother’. The incident in relation to the viewing of her LinkedIn page took place in December 2020 and I accept his explanation, I also accept the uploading of photographs in the same month was inadvertent and neither amounted to harassment. They are also almost four years ago and have not been repeated. I have considered the issues of the Our Family Wizard communications at length, as I have already set out criticisms can be made of both parties, however I am clear it does not amount to ‘coercive or controlling behaviour.’ Dr Van Velsen said of the communications, ‘There were some comments that the father could be quite intense and the mother rather brief. This is to be expected in the context of the situation and it is positive both parents persisted, in spiteof the conflict that led to proceedings.’ I entirely agree with her comments.

I turn now to the welfare checklist, to be considered in light of the Schedule of Concessions and Findings and as guided by paragraphs 36-39 of PD12J, to consider what orders I should make in this case, with Benji’s welfare being my paramount consideration.

In those circumstances these are the orders I make in respect of Benji at this time;

Such contact is to be facilitated and supervised by an independent social worker, jointly instructed by the parties albeit to be paid for by the paternal grandparents and the mother jointly, who will file a report at the end of a 4-month period setting out the progress of the contact and making recommendations for the future. Benji will need to be taken to and returned at the end of the contact by the independent social worker and it may be more successful if it is from school or an activity as opposed to directly from his mother. I am content for the above timetable therefore to be varied by way of agreement between the independent social worker and the Guardian and for them to provide the ‘intervention guidance and assistance’ she indicated was necessary to ensure the success of this order.

I intend to review the matter in 5 months time. I hope and expect by then that Benji will have firmly re-established his relationship with the paternal grandparents and that relations will have improved between the mother and the paternal grandmother. At that stage we will consider again the issue of whether the father should have direct contact with Benji and if so how it can be facilitated, whether by way of the paternal grandparents or entirely separately to them, so as to not put their relationship with him in jeopardy. I would hope if nothing else a relationship with his paternal grandparents will allow him to soften somewhat in his views of his father, and in circumstances where that relationship should then be able to revert to a more realistic level of monthly contact, it would allow the opportunity if appropriate for the independent social worker, who Benji will have an established relationship with, to in turn work to build a relationship between Benji and his father. I hope the independent social worker and the Guardian by that stage will be able to make recommendations on the way forward.

I will also give the parties liberty to apply, I expect the matter to be immediately brought back to court if the order is not complied with and the contact does not happen. At that stage either further expert assessment will be required and/or a section 37 direction will be made. There can be no further delay for this child in re-establishing a relationship with the paternal family.