A and B (Children) (Strangulation: Risk Assessment), Re

This case concerns two young children, A (5) and B (4), who witnessed their Father assault their Mother. The children’s welfare is my paramount consideration (Footnote: ¹).

The mother seeks a Child Arrangements Order and permission to renew the children’s passports without the father’s consent. Both parents have parental responsibility and represented themselves in court.

The central issue is whether the father’s contact with the children should remain professionally supervised or can safely progress to unsupervised contact.

At the final hearing on 19^th May 2025, I informed the parties of my decision:

I gave brief reasons with this more detailed written judgment to follow. I acknowledged Father’s positive relationship with the children during supervised contact. However, due to past domestic abuse, mental health concerns, and lack of insight, unsupervised contact is not currently safe. Any future change must be supported by professional evidence of reduced risk.

I have not made an order restricting future applications (Footnote: ²), but any premature application without clear evidence of change is likely to fail.

My judgment is arranged as follows:

The strangulation offence

The family proceedings

The evidence

The incident on 1^st April 2025

Welfare of the children

Risk assessment

•

What type of harm has arisen and might arise?

•

How likely is it to arise?

•

What would be the consequences for the child if it did?

•

To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed?

•

Other welfare considerations

•

In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child’s welfare?

•

If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or others, is that necessary and proportionate?

The parents were in a relationship for seven years, ending in 2023. After separation, they continued living together for a time. The mother is now in a new relationship.

In October 2022, police were called after the father allegedly locked the mother out of the house with the children inside. The children were distressed, but no charges followed. Social services offered early help.

On 16 January 2024, the father assaulted the mother by intentionally strangling her (Footnote: ³). He pleaded guilty at Aylesbury Crown Court. The conviction stands as proof of the offence unless the contrary is proved (Footnote: ⁴).

Recorder Miskin’s sentencing remarks on 19 July 2024 described the incident:

“The day before the events with which we are…concerned you had an operation which was probably very uncomfortable and may, I am not saying it did, but may have contributed to the events that occurred on the following day. An argument took place between the two of you at the place where you were living. You didn't want her to leave, but she left. She went to get the children. She took some property…

You went out to look for her. You stopped her. She was effectively required to pull over in the car park for a doctor's surgery. You tried to open the door, but it was locked and she rolled down the window a little bit to try to talk to you. You accused her of stealing the children. She accidentally opened the window fully, enabling you to open the door.

You pushed her in the chest with some force. The children were crying. You took hold of her phone to stop her calling the police and said words to the effect ‘what do you think is going to happen? These are the consequences’...You grabbed her by the neck. This lasted for a few seconds. You have got on top of her. You removed your hands from her neck and during this episode your daughter said to you ‘Daddy, don't kill Mummy’...”

The Recorder had seen CCTV, which he described as:

“some four clips in which you chase her, and then you bring her back to the car and she runs off again and then we see one of the little girls looking for her Mum. The police attended. The children were upset. You were upset.

In interview you accepted being there, you accepted there was a tussle, but you were not prepared to…admit the actual matter with which you are now charged. You were bailed, subject to conditions of no contact. There was repeated contact in breach of that bail…”

Following the incident, a referral was made to Buckinghamshire Council on 17 January 2024. On 7^th February, a child protection plan was put in place under the category of emotional abuse. On 4 March 2024, the Father presented at Stoke Mandeville Hospital having taken an overdose. On 12 March, he was remanded in custody for contacting the Mother in breach of his bail conditions.

On 19 July 2024, the father was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with conditions:

An indefinite Restraining Order (Footnote: ⁵) prohibits:

The Children Act proceedings began on 14th May 2024.

On 28 August 2024, Magistrates ordered a Section 7 report and concluded that a separate fact-finding hearing was not necessary or proportionate due to the conviction and protective measures.

On 23 October, the local authority downgraded involvement to a child-in-need plan, recognising the mother’s protective actions.

On 13 December 2024, interim supervised contact was ordered. The father has consistently attended and contact reports have been positive. I have read all reports provided.

Magistrates directed that the final hearing proceed based on the evidence of social worker Melissa Tait, who wrote the Section 7 report; and submissions from the parties. They declined to admit the psychiatric report from the criminal proceedings, on the basis that it was not necessary to assist the court in resolving the proceedings justly.

The court heard evidence from Melissa Tait, the social worker who authored two detailed and balanced reports. Her oral evidence was careful and well-reasoned. I place significant weight on her professional assessment.

Following her evidence on 3 March, I adjourned the final hearing to obtain:

Ms Tait was directed to prepare an addendum report after reviewing these materials.

The hearing resumed on 1 April. That morning, the mother reported an incident outside court involving the father and her partner (“P”). She alleged the father followed and threatened him. The father denied knowing who P was and claimed it was a driving-related disagreement.

Due to the potential relevance to risk assessment, I ordered police disclosure. At a further hearing on 23 April, I ruled it necessary and proportionate to hear evidence from P.

On 12 May, I heard evidence from P, who was cross-examined by a court appointed QLR, (Footnote: ⁶) Akeem Ogunsola, on behalf of the Father.

I have considered the full court bundle, including all contact reports and professional assessments.

Throughout the proceedings, the parties were provided with separate waiting areas and a screen in court to shield them from each other’s view (Footnote: ⁷).

The incident occurred at traffic lights near the Magistrates’ Court.

P gave a statement to police, describing how the father pulled up beside him, spat on his window, and shouted threats, including “I’ll fuck you up” and “You’re trying to take my kids away.” P said he was frightened and did not respond. The police took no further action due to insufficient evidence.

The Family Court uses a lower standard of proof than the criminal courts. In Re R (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding Hearing) [2018] EWCA Civ 198, McFarlane LJ explained at paragraph 65 that family proceedings focus on past events to inform welfare decisions, not criminal culpability.:

"The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child with the court's eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established… criminal law concepts, such as the elements needed to establish guilt of a particular crime or a defence, have neither relevance nor function within a process of fact-finding in the Family Court…”

In cross-examination, P stated he first noticed the Father when he spat on the window. The father leaned across the car and shouted throughout the red-light phase. P recognised him from photos shown by the mother. When asked how he could hear the words, P said:

“He was shouting. I was able to hear everything. It's a dual carriageway. He was alongside my car. He leaned over as far as he could and he was shouting…The lights had just hit red. It was quite a long change at that particular set of lights and he was shouting for the duration…”

P later denied fabricating the allegation:

“No. I made the allegation because I was concerned for my safety and my partner's safety. When I arrived home, I text my partner to tell her what happened, and then I called the police…There was a tirade for the entire time, two things I can categorically say were regarding the kids and the threat to me…the two phrases I gave in the statement are the two of which I was absolutely certain…the only driving I have done without [the Mother] in the car was turning left and stopping at the traffic lights. I fail to see how I could have driven in a way which would annoy him.”

The Father prepared a witness statement concerning the incident, which stated:

“The night prior, I had little to no sleep and it was a very highly stressful time…At the red light next to the court, words were exchanged with the driver and we went our separate ways. Only upon returning to the court and the Mother referring to the incident that I realised the driver was her current partner, if I had known who the driver was I would not have engaged…Upon much reflection I can accept I am uncomfortable with the presence of another man in the lives of my children, while mine is severely limited and restricted. I'm in the process of experiencing jealousy and resentment towards the current partner as he is able to have access to my children in ways their own Father cannot.”

In oral evidence, the Father denied following P, making threats or referencing the children. He claimed he missed the court turning and was annoyed by P’s driving:

“I was not happy with his driving on the way to the red light. I was a bit stressed and easily triggered, I guess is the word. I wanted to say what I needed to say. I cannot remember exactly. Maybe the car was not driving fast enough, just a very difficult time and something I will learn and improve upon in future. Literally anything at that moment would have annoyed me because I've missed the turn. It's very unfortunate that the person I had that communication with is a very relevant person. If I have known who it was, I would have reacted differently.”

I have applied the principles summarised from paragraph 24 of Re B-B [2022] EWHC 108 Fam. The burden of proof lies with the party making an allegation. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

The following paragraph is of relevance in this context:

“The court needs to be vigilant to the possibility that one or other parent may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration or fabrication.”

I found P’s account more credible. He reported the incident promptly and his account has remained consistent. His credibility is reinforced by the Father's admission that the interaction did occur, and of feelings of jealousy and resentment towards P.

The father’s explanation was vague and unconvincing. He failed to describe the alleged poor driving or clarify the “words exchanged”. His claim that P fabricated the incident to influence proceedings is implausible. First, it would be a convoluted means of seeking to influence the proceedings, which were already at an advanced stage. Second, it is inherently unlikely that a driving disagreement arose given the straightforward road layout. The route from the court to the traffic lights is approximately 300 metres along a straight dual carriageway, with no crossing of lanes required.

I find it more likely than not that the father recognised P, followed him, and made the threats described. This shows the father’s continued inability to manage his emotions and behaviour under stress.

I have applied Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. There is a presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare, provided it does not put the child at risk of suffering harm. I should not make an order unless doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

I have considered the factors in the Section 1(3) ‘welfare checklist’, although not all are referenced here. A key consideration is any harm which the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering. ‘Harm’ means “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another” (Footnote: ⁸).

I have also applied Practice Direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules. Paragraph 4 provides that:

“Domestic abuse is harmful to children, and/or puts children at risk of harm, including where they are victims of domestic abuse for example by witnessing one of their parents being violent or abusive to the other parent, or living in a home in which domestic abuse is perpetrated (even if the child is too young to be conscious of the behaviour). Children may suffer direct physical, psychological and/or emotional harm from living with and being victims of domestic abuse, and may also suffer harm indirectly where the domestic abuse impairs the parenting capacity of either or both of their parents.”

Paragraphs 35 to 37 of PD12J guide decisions when domestic abuse is established:

“35.

When deciding the issue of child arrangements, the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.

36.

(1)

In the light of…domestic abuse having…been established, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained.

(2)

In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm-

(a)

which the child as a victim of domestic abuse, and the parent with whom the child is living, has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse; and

(b)

which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made.

(3)

The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied-

(a)

that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before, during and after contact; and

(b)

that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.

37.

In every case where…domestic abuse is…established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider –

(a)

the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living;

(b)

the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child’s relationship with the parents;

(c)

whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent;

(d)

the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and

(e)

the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.”

My assessment of harm follows the framework set out by Jackson LJ in T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93 at paragraph 33.

(1) What type of harm has arisen and might arise? I find that the children have suffered emotional harm from exposure to parental conflict, witnessing abuse and the father failing to prioritise their needs. There is an underlying pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour.

The strangulation offence caused emotional trauma to the Mother and children. It would have been terrifying from the children’s perspective. The offence may not have resulted in physical harm, but as Davis LJ said in R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452:

“The absence of any reference to injury or harm [in the legislation] was deliberate. The act of strangulation inevitably creates a real and justified fear of death. The victim will be terrified and often will be unconscious within a relatively few seconds if pressure is maintained. There is real harm inherent in the act of strangulation.”

There was an earlier referral to the local authority, described at paragraph 9 above. During the subsequent Child and Family Assessment, the Mother described unsuccessfully trying to end the relationship. It is unlikely that the strangulation was first time the children were exposed to parental conflict.

I find that the Father’s mental health has been negatively affected by the conflict, which in turn has harmed the children. He relies on videos he claims show the mother’s emotional abuse. In my judgment, the videos reflect the risk posed by him.

The videos are filmed around the same time as the strangulation incident in January 2024, when there was discussion of the Mother leaving. In one video, both children are crying and distressed. The Father says:

“Are you hungry? Well, we don't have any food, do we? Mummy’s just fucking left us, disappeared. Fucking what the fuck is she doing, man?”

In the second video, both children are crying. The camera turns to the Father, who is also crying. He says:

“I want Mummy as well. This is what you're doing, man. What are you fucking doing to us, man. You're sleeping, you're resting. Your plan is fucking amazing. I want you. [A] wants you, OK? [A] wants her mummy.”

These videos were likely filmed to manipulate the mother. They show the father disregarding the children’s emotional state and using their distress to influence her. This is coercive and controlling behaviour.

(2) How likely is it that further harm will arise? Supervised contact has provided a safe and structured environment, and the sessions have been consistently positive. However, this does not eliminate the risk of harm in an unsupervised setting.

I place significant weight on the professional risk assessments. The pre-sentence report states:

“In my assessment…recklessness and lack of control is evidenced by the circumstances of the offence in public and witnessed by the public, in front of the children, in spite of the obvious impact it would have upon them, and in the car when neither the Mother or her children could escape…Even after stopping the strangulation behaviour, due to his realisation of what he was doing, he continued to seek out and cause further harm to the Mother by chasing her, slapping her and dragging her back to the car.

The report explains that the father attributed his actions to ‘post-surgery delirium’. Dr Al Tayer described this as post-operative confusion, exacerbated by physical discomfort and metabolic disturbance. However, the report notes this was not an isolated incident of controlling behaviour. The violence was driven by disappointment, anger, and a desire to control the victim, who had previously tried to end the relationship. It continues:

“Research tells us it can take only seconds to lose consciousness during a strangulation incident, and the line between fatal and non-fatal strangulation is perilously thin, according to the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention. A woman who has suffered a non-fatal strangulation incident with her…partner is 75% more likely to be killed by the same perpetrator. And considering the impact of the offence upon his ex-partner and children, the Father showed limited insight. Throughout our interview, he repeatedly sought to blame the victim for giving him mixed messages, depriving him of his children, and stressing him out.

The pre-sentence opines that the offence has had a profound impact on the Mother and the children. The father continues to idealise the relationship and parenthood, and is likely to pursue reconciliation. He has made two recent suicide attempts and is involved with adult mental health crisis services. The author assesses him as a high risk of serious harm to the mother and children, both physically and psychologically, and a medium risk of harm to himself. They express concern about managing this risk in the community, citing stalking behaviour, the seriousness of the assault, and breaches of bail.

In his sentencing remarks, Recorder Miskin said:

“I have read the victim impact statement in which [the Mother] states she is very scared and lives in constant fear…I have read the psychiatric report of doctor Al-Taiar which describes you as having been depressed about your life…Your mental disorder…may have had some contributory effect in this case…Genuine recognition of the need for change - given the contents of the pre-sentence report, I am not currently persuaded that that mitigating feature appears in this case…it seems to me that the most important aspect from the sentencing point of view is the protection of your partner from further exposure to you. And I don't believe that a Restraining Order is really quite sufficient to achieve that, given the history of the matter.”

In her report, Ms Tait said:

“Throughout this report I have evidenced the concerns around [the Father’s] problematic behaviours, and how giving the timing of these current proceedings with his release in July 2024, there has been little time for [him] to complete his rehabilitative offending behaviour work. The Father at present remains a high risk of serious harm to [the Mother], as outlined by Probation, and as such the local authority recommends supervised contact…As part of his suspended sentence, the Father will attend an accredited course aimed at raising insight into abusive behaviours known as Building Choices.”

Ms Tait wrote that, although the Father is engaging with probation and has begun to acknowledge harm, he continues to minimise his actions and blame his medical condition. Support workers from the Drive programme observed that he lacks understanding of the impact on the mother and children. Continued engagement with therapy is essential for his personal safety and parenting capacity.

The Probation ‘OASys’ risk assessment dated 23 October 2024 describes the risk as including physical violence and emotional harm from witnessing abuse. It notes that strangulation could be fatal. Although the father is not currently in a relationship, he is assessed as a high risk to the mother and children, and medium risk to future partners. If he were to make contact with the Mother, he has the propensity to cause serious, even fatal harm. The Father has not yet completed any accredited programmes therefore his criminogenic needs remain largely unaddressed.

The Father’s attitude towards the Mother is also of concern. Ms Tait wrote:

“One has to question if there is an element of disguised compliance or lip service given the gravity of the stakes. Throughout the process of completing this report, professionals have raised concerns that [the Father] has been [attempting to contact the Mother directly]…repeatedly asking the professional group if he can send money to [the Mother] for the children, speaking of Apps designed…for co-parenting and asking when there will be some dialogue between him and [the Mother] in order to complete this report even though he is aware of a restraining order against him.”

I observed similar lack of insight during the hearing. The Father asked Ms Tait:

Q: What would a positive co-parenting relationship mean for the children?

R: If it happens in a safe manner it is good for children's security and stability.

Q: Would mediation have any positive outcome?

R: There is an indefinite restraining order against you, so mediation would prove problematic.

During submissions, the Father referred to being willing to work with the Mother. He also referred to the strangulation incident as a one-off, caused by post-operative confusion.

The events on 1 April 2025 show that the Father remains unable to regulate his behaviour under stress. The strangulation incident was, in my judgment, part of a pattern of abusive behaviour which is likely to be repeated should he come into contact with the Mother or her partner, regardless of whether the children are present. The risk is heightened by lack of insight, unrealistic expectations and the Mother’s new relationship.

In an unsupervised setting, I find a high risk that the father would manipulate contact arrangements to get around the Restraining Order, and expose the children to further abuse—particularly during periods of stress or conflict.

(3) What would be the consequences for the child if the harm did arise? Ms Tait’s report explains the likely consequences of further abusive behaviour:

“Research indicates that emotional and behavioural problems in children are more common when their parents are fighting during the separation. Children can become very insecure…Children who witnessed domestic abuse are also at risk of both short and long term physical and mental health problems. Domestic abuse can have a negative impact on a child's behaviour, brain development and well-being. Children need safety and security. When these needs are not met, it can take a toll on their education and their mental health.”

In this case, the children have already shown signs of distress. They were present during the strangulation incident and have been exposed to the father’s emotional volatility. The risk of further exposure, especially in an unsupervised setting, could significantly undermine their emotional development and sense of security.

(4) To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed? Professional supervision has proven to be an effective way of managing the risks identified. Contact sessions have been positive and the children have benefitted from safe, structured interaction with their father. However, the possibility of using a mutually agreed third party for supervision has been explored and found unviable, as the father could not propose a suitable person. This form of supervision remains untested.

Risk reduction depends on the father’s engagement with rehabilitative work. Letters from the Father’s Probation Officer dated 20 February 2025 and 5 March 2025 confirm the Father has attended 32 appointments covering personal well-being, finances, benefits and debt.

The letters explain he has shown motivation and a good attitude toward completing his sentence plan. Although he disputes the high-risk classification, he is willing to work to reduce it. He is on the waiting list for the Building Choices Programme, which includes 31 sessions and five post-programme one-to-ones. Due to the backlog, there is expected to be a delay in him starting the BCP because the suspended sentence runs until July 2026.

The letter refers to courses which the Father completed while in prison, including one concerning good relationships. Ms Tait referred to a letter from Buckinghamshire Talking Therapy Service indicating the Father attended six sessions of telephone guided cognitive behavioural therapy. His GP confirms diagnoses of anxiety and depression, for which he is receiving medication.

Ms Tait wrote:

“If and when [the Father’s] risk is reduced by probation, by his completion of the accredited programme and reports indicate he is evidencing a consistent understanding of the harm he caused without minimisation, can this contact schedule be reviewed. This is when [unsupervised] contact at home and overnights can be explored…”

In her initial report, Ms Tait recommended weekly supervised contact until 31 July 2025, followed by unsupervised contact with supported handovers. This assumed that risk would be reduced by then, primarily by completing the BCP. However, she later clarified that this recommendation was made before she had access to the sentencing remarks, pre-sentence report, and probation updates.

She said the reasoning behind 31^st July 2025 was that the Father would by then be a year into his suspended sentence, which would allow him time to evidence continued engagement. As we now know, it is unlikely the Father will have completed the crucial rehabilitative element of the suspended sentence by then.

During her further evidence on 1^st April, Ms Tait said:

“The severity of the offending behaviour is now clear. The risk of harm document completed by [the] Probation officer in October 2024 shows that he continues to be assessed as a high risk of serious harm to the Mother and his children. Based upon if the children [witness another] domestic abuse incident, the children will be scarred emotionally which will have an adverse effect on them physically and emotionally. There is a risk of behaviour being repeated with future partners, but also very much to the Mother. My concerns are about the interactions between the parents. If the Mother and Father come into contact with each other in the presence of the children, that can be managed by supervised contact.”

I will deal with (5) What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account? This part of the assessment draws on elements of the welfare checklist under Section 1(3) of the Children Act. I have considered all factors but only refer here to the most relevant.

Firstly, the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children. Ms Tait met with the children every 10 working days between May and November 2024. She:

“…consistently explored their wishes and feelings around their Father in a child-appropriate manner during those visits. Both children have pre-existing bonds with their Father as he was a constant feature in their lives prior to his incarceration…In my professional opinion, I assess that neither [child] demonstrated any reservations in seeing their Father, and…consistent contact moving forward with the Father is in line with their wishes and feelings.”

Supervised contact notes support this, for example:

In terms of their needs, both children are developing in line with their peers and have no special educational needs. Ms Tait wrote:

“Research tells us that having a relationship with both parents is beneficial for children. Children with secure attachments to both parents show better mental health and language skills. They also tend to have better educational attainments and overall well-being. Throughout my work with [A and B], it has been evident that they have pre-existing appropriate attachments and secure bonds with their Father as they would discuss happy memories of times with him. As such, I think it is essential for their well-being and continued understanding of identity that this relationship continues in a safe way for them.”

Turning to the capability of the parents of meeting the children's needs. First, the Mother. Ms Tait said:

“The Mother has consistently evidenced exceptional parenting capacity and ability to protect the children and meet their physical and emotional needs. [They] have primarily lived with the Mother since 17^th January 2024. It is recorded in the contact notes that the Mother was late to some contact sessions, which might be said to indicate she is not truly promoting the children's relationship with the Father.”

Although she was late to some contact sessions, Ms Tait found no evidence that the Mother was undermining the children’s relationship with their father. On the contrary, she kept the father “present” in the children’s lives during his absence and initiated the child arrangements application to ensure safe, meaningful contact, without compromising her own safety.

The father has accused the mother of alienating the children. I do not make this finding. Ms Tait confirmed in evidence on both 3 March and 1 April that she saw no evidence of alienating behaviour. The father’s stance reinforces my finding that he lacks insight into the impact of his behaviour.

Turning to the Father. He clearly loves the children and wants what is best for them. Contact notes show he is capable of meeting their emotional and physical needs in a supervised setting. He prepares for sessions, provides healthy snacks, supervises appropriately, and engages warmly. He consistently tells the children he loves them, and they respond positively:

“He was observed meeting their emotional needs in what was a particularly emotionally heightened context for them all, as they had not seen each other for a considerable period of time. [The Father] was able to demonstrate placing his children's emotions before his own. He contained himself well…[He showed] warm, nurturing interactions with his children, telling them that he loves them consistently…”

Jackson LJ’s final considerations:

(6)

In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child’s welfare? – and –

(7)

If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate?”

These questions are best considered alongside the welfare checklist factor, the range of powers available to the court. The realistic options are

There is no dispute that the children should live with the mother. She seeks only supervised contact—either in a contact centre or the community—until the father completes his rehabilitation and professional evidence supports a reduction in risk and increase in parenting capacity.

She also seeks a specific issue order allowing her to obtain and renew the children’s passports without the father’s consent. The passports are not UK-issued, and the law in the issuing country requires the father’s involvement unless a court order states otherwise. She also wishes to take the children abroad without needing his consent, citing the practical difficulties posed by the restraining order.

The Father seeks unsupervised contact, including overnight stays, and ultimately 50:50 shared care. He does not oppose professionally supervised handovers. He argues that reducing contact to fortnightly would distress the children, who have had four months of consistent weekly contact. However, he also claims weekly supervision is unaffordable—partly contradicting his argument on frequency.

The Father accepts that overnight or shared care cannot begin immediately but believes unsupervised contact is now appropriate. He opposes the passport order, primarily on principle, asserting his parental responsibility.

When asked about the distinction between the contact itself being professionally supervised as opposed to only handovers, Ms Tait said:

“My concern about [unsupervised with supported handovers] is I do not know the Father's motivation, what conversations he is going to have with the children without him completing the interventions…and gaining insight into future behaviour, I cannot be certain that there will not be inappropriate conversations.”

The possibility of a conditional order—e.g., unsupervised contact once probation assesses the father’s risk as medium or low—was discussed. Ms Tait advised against it, citing the complexity of the risk assessment. I agree. A conditional order could cause the father to fixate on specific wording rather than genuinely reducing risk.

Ms Tait ultimately recommended the court make a final order for supervised contact, fortnightly for up to four hours.

She explained the reduction from weekly to fortnightly in this way:

“The relationships between the Father and the children are now re-established and fortnightly is more child centred to maintain a balance in the children's lives. These are young children, with various commitments, lots of birthday parties take place at a weekend, extracurricular activities…but also to acknowledge the financial burden on the Father and to consider the sustainability of the contact.”

Ms Tait did not object to contact continuing in the community rather than a centre, emphasising that supervision is the key factor.

I find it unlikely that reducing contact to fortnightly will cause the distress the father predicts. In my judgment, this plan best promotes the children’s welfare. It manages risk, allows the father to focus on rehabilitation, and provides safe, meaningful contact for the children. It is more financially sustainable.

Restricting contact is an interference with the Article 8 rights of both the Father and the children. However, it is less intrusive than denying contact altogether. It keeps the door open to future unsupervised contact. It is the least interventionist approach that sufficiently manages risk. It is necessary and proportionate.

Regarding the passport issue, there is no sensible objection given the Restraining Order. The father will retain parental responsibility. I grant the application.

That is my judgment. I direct that copies be disclosed to Buckinghamshire Council and the Father’s supervising Probation Officer.