A Father v A Mother

This is intended to be a focused judgment. My intention is to provide a clear explanation to both parents of my conclusions in this case and the approach I now intend to take in the light of my findings. I do not want this explanation to be lost in a lengthy and detailed judgment which favours structure over content.

I have reached the following clear conclusions in this case:

This was a final hearing in proceedings which started nearly 3½ years ago. These proceedings followed relatively shortly after proceedings which commenced in 2019 and concluded in 2021. The children are aged 9 and 11 years respectively and have therefore lived the majority of their lives within legal proceedings.

On the morning of the first day of the hearing I heard an application to adjourn the final hearing. I refused the same. I was, and remain, satisfied this was the right decision. I subsequently heard evidence from both parents and the NYAS caseworker. I also heard short submissions and have read all the documents placed before including within the hearing bundle. I bear all of this in mind whether or not I reference it within this judgment.

I applied participation directions. A screen was used in Court during the hearing separating the parents. I also put questions on behalf of the father to the mother.

The parties are both immigrants to this country and have pursued a right to remain here. The mother has recently obtained a right to remain. The father is continuing to pursue his right to remain. The children were born in this country. The parents are from different religious backgrounds albeit from a similar part of the world.

The children were born out of the relationship between the parents which ended in 2017 when the children were still young. The children stayed with the mother but due to difficulties with contact the father made application to the Court in 2019.

In a final order made in January 2021 the Magistrates provided for the children to live with the mother and spend increasing time with the father. These arrangements were to culminate in regular weekend contact and additional overnight periods during the school holidays. These arrangements appear to have largely worked until Easter 2022 when contact arrangements for 7 nights did not proceed. The father issued an application to enforce. Nonetheless it appears further contact continued including 2 weeks staying contact in the summer of 2022.

In section B of the bundle, I find a history of these proceedings. Over the last 3 years there have been approximately 11 case management hearings. On any view this is illustrative of a failure in the proceedings. The case has involved social work involvement including two s7 reports, a section 47 report, the recent appointment of a NYAS caseworker and the obtaining of a global psychological assessment. As a result, I have a wealth of evidence which has enabled me to reach clear conclusions.

In October 2022 and so in the midst of the proceedings the regular contact stopped with an allegation being made against the father. Since that date contact has been largely supervised with significant support from the local authority and the children’s school. I have a range of notes and reports with respect to contact between 2022 and 2024. Since 2024 contact has become increasingly difficult with the children refusing to properly engage with the contact sessions.

At the heart of this case is the need to understand why it is that the children have reached a point where they are expressing a wish not to see their father. This case is less about the destination that has been reached and more about understanding the route that has brought us to this destination.

The father says matters have deteriorated as a result of the mother’s attitude and hostility towards him which has had a direct impact on the wish of the children to see him. In this regard he is supported by the NYAS caseworker and it seems to me all the professionals who have worked with the children.

The mother disputes this and argues the children are expressing this view as a result of failures on the part of the father. These include some of his behaviours and also the quality of the contact he has offered.

The children’s welfare is paramount. What is best for them is my goal from start to finish. I will have regard to the welfare checklist. I presume they will benefit from a relationship with both of their parents so long as this can be safe.

In considering the question of alienation I am concerned with patterns of behaviour which tend to cause a relationship between a parent and child to be stifled or damaged. This may reflect a deliberate intention to stifle but does not have to be. I am not concerned with alienation as a psychological condition. Understood in this way investigating whether a parent is acting in an alienating fashion should not be unduly complex although it may be forensically challenging.

These parents disagree about the facts. I consider it will be for the father to prove the mother has acted in this way. This is the central allegation in the case. He will prove this if he shows this to be the case on the balance of probabilities. The mother does not need to disprove the allegation. In considering the allegation I should have regard to all the evidence with a particular focus on the evidence given by each parent.

I may have regard to the demeanour of the witnesses in establishing the truth of the case but I should do so with care and I am mindful of factors which may mean that the manner in which the evidence was given may not necessarily be a good guide to where the truth lies.

The father was a litigant in person. I was generally impressed by his evidence which was measured and consistent. He gave evidence through an interpreter. He provided a list of questions which were focused and well planned. He dealt with questions which suggested he was responsible for what was taking place head on and without evasion or deflection.

The mother was less impressive. She also gave evidence through an interpreter. She struggled to keep focused on the questions asked and regularly departed to provide information which did not address the question asked. My sense was that in doing so she was evading providing an answer which might have been unhelpful to her case. Having said that this decision does not rely on my views in this regard. It is based on the evidence heard and the consistent contradiction between what the mother told me and what the evidence including contemporaneous evidence told me. In this regard her evidence stood fundamentally in contradiction to almost all the other evidence placed before me.

The NYAS caseworker was firm and robust. She did not sit on the fence and was clear as to where her analysis of the evidence took her. This is to be expected of a professional witness. She explained her reasoning and was not dogmatic. Her evidence was clear and impressive.

I do not intend to provide a comprehensive account of the evidence heard. I intend to provide a brief summary. In fact, the actual evidence given was quite limited given some delays with the hearing, the delay caused via interpretation and the tendency for extraneous evidence to be given.

In summary the father set out a case in which his contact has deteriorated as a result of the manipulation by the mother. The children had been encouraged to make false allegations against him and regularly raised adult points which must have come from the mother. He denied responsibility for the children’s views and drew attention to the evidence of the children previously enjoying contact. The point had been reached where he now could only see a way forward through supervised contact. He had considered options put forward by the NYAS caseworker and reached the conclusion that the children needed to be placed into a neutral environment (foster care) to permit them space to re-establish their relationship with him. Whilst he was critical of the mother’s actions he acknowledged her contribution as a parent and argued the children should have a relationship with both parents. He denied a range of points put to him including that he had a new wife that the children had been forced to meet, that he smoked and drank alcohol and other matters.

The mother maintained an account of supporting contact but this had become increasingly contrary to the wishes of the children who were growing older and developing their own views. She argued the father was a risk to the children but it was unclear in what way. She argued he had lied about not marrying, smoking/vaping, and drinking and needed to be honest. It was unclear in what way any of these points were in any event risk laden. She was taken to reports from social workers and teachers as to things said by both her and the children and denied they were true. At one point she appeared to suggest a professional had been bribed (presumably by the father). She argued the father remained motivated by his immigration claim. In summary she was clear she had done nothing to cause the children to express the views they had and that this had arisen independently out of the interactions between the father and children.

The NYAS caseworker drew on her own investigations and all that had come before. She was clear the mother was unable to promote contact with the father and had been untruthful over a number of issues. She was questioned as to the potential for work to be undertaken with the mother but noted the local authority had offered family therapy, which had been refused by the mother and that the mother had wholly rejected the advice of the expert in the case. She spoke of this being an immensely sad case with the children now being rude and obstructive about the father.

Cases of this sort can be notoriously difficult to resolve. The Court is often confronted by children oppositional to contact and with two parents taking diametrically opposed positions with little independent evidence available to the Court to enable it to find a clear route through the competing views. This is not such a case. The Court is often mindful of the potential for alienation to be set up improperly as a counter to allegations of domestic abuse. This is not such a case.

In this case the evidence available to me is clear and compelling. The vast weight of the evidence and all of the independent professional evidence points in the same direction. The conclusions reached by the professionals are substantially based on things said and done by both the mother and the children. As such these conclusions are robust.

I make particular reference to the following matters:

At the same time there is good evidence of the children previously looking forward to contact with their father. Importantly this post-dates the allegations raised in October 2022. It is simply impossible to reconcile on what basis the children then became oppositional to their father as a result of his behaviour given that the contact was then supervised and the evidence is of positive contact. I cannot locate a space in which the father might have acted to undermine the contact without the same being witnessed by professionals. One is left with the time they spend with their mother, a person who self reports as feeling contact is not in their interests and who they report will be angry if they see their father.

Whilst it is not necessary for me to determine why she has taken this approach there would appear to be good evidence that this flows from her sense of resentment towards the father for leaving their relationship. I sense this is why she is so fixated on the issue of the lady friend.

I am in no doubt this has been emotionally damaging for the children. I consider there are reasonable grounds for believing they have suffered and are continuing to suffer significant emotional harm as a result of their mother’s behaviour. The harm is attributable to her conduct and is not what is to be expected from a reasonable parent. I am conscious this conclusion amounts to a crossing of the interim threshold for the making of an interim care order.

This damage is both obvious and broad in its impact. These children have been compelled to bury their true feelings to meet their mothers needs. At a psychological level this is deeply problematic. It is difficult to assess how this will impact on their future development and their ability to form and maintain future relationships, other than to conclude it is likely to be harmful to the same.

Their mother has chosen to put her own needs before those of the children. Indeed, she has moulded their needs to her own. This is a most unhealthy state of affairs and will likely not end well for the children or the mother. It was put to me that she is providing good care to the children. To an extent this may be correct but such good care is significantly undermined by the approach she has taken to the relationship the children should have with the father.

I am left questioning the ability of the children to rebuild their relationship with their father given the chance to do so. I can see these children have concurrently expressed negative views of their father whilst expressing their wish to see him. I judge their current fixed position is a consequence of simply being unable to manage this mixed approach any longer. They have had to make a choice in the difficult circumstances into which they have been placed, and this is the choice they have made to preserve their emotional wellbeing. But this does not mean they do not have the capacity to readjust and engage with their father so long as their fears as to possible retribution can be resolved.

The children are expressing a wish not to see their father. However, I judge this is not a reliable indication of their true feelings and rather reflects the circumstances in which they have been compelled to make a choice that they should not have been asked to make. Their feelings are an understandable act of self-protection given the position they have been placed into. It is concerning the mother simply focuses on what they are now saying to professionals as sufficient to make out her case and yet entirely fails to have regard to what came before and what may explain why the children might be expressing themselves in this manner. I am sure she is unwilling to do so because to do so would have significant implications for the case she puts.

Central to this judgment is the emotional need of each child. The children need stability and the love and affection they deserve from their parents. They need to know they are wanted and are central in the thoughts of each of their parents. They need to know they have an entitlement to a relationship with both their parents. They need to have an accurate understanding of each parent and not one shaped by lies or coercion. If they shape their upbringing to fit to the wants or needs of one parent then they will enter adolescence and adulthood poorly formed to meet the challenges of the same. It is questionable whether they will establish the important attachment relationships which are required to build future lasting and worthwhile intimate and interpersonal relationships. In short there is the potential for the current failures to impact on the children throughout their future lives.

These are profound needs and serious worries. Yet there is no good reason as to why this should be the case. This makes the situation so much more desperate.

I have regard to the children’s identity and characteristics. The parents are of different religious backgrounds and there is, it seems to me, a danger of the children coming to be shaped through the prism of the mother’s cultural identity only and rejecting the father and his background. This is very negative. I am concerned as to their age and the possibility that their current expressed views may become crystallised with the potential for future readjustment being lost. Too much time has been lost during these proceedings. If change is to be affected it needs to start now.

I have regard to what a change in their circumstances or no change will mean for them. No change at this time will mean no relationship with their father. He will cease to be part of their life and they will suffer harm as a consequence. The caseworker identifies options including removal or change of residence. I bear in mind such a decision is not an option of last resort but on the facts it is not practical at this time in any event. I agree were this to happen then it would need to be carefully worked through and managed. I agree it would or may come with negatives in terms of the response of the children to the decision. Whilst I have noted the potential for space to provide emotional opportunity it may simply foster resentment of the father which would be counterproductive. I do not lose sight of the impact this would have on their relationship with their mother which has positives notwithstanding the focus in this judgment upon the negatives.

As to safety I have drawn attention to the harm being suffered by the children. Without action this will continue.

The Court has to reflect on the capability of the parents to meet the needs of the children. In many ways the mother is giving good care but in a significant regard she is abjectly failing. This case has been about the father being able to have a relationship with the children whilst they live with their mother. In that context he also can meet their needs and was doing so until the contact was stopped.

I have reached the conclusion the children should be seeing their father and it is the mother by her conduct who is preventing this. I consider given emotional permission of their mother they would see their father, as they previously did.

If this can be achieved and sustained then there is no reason to depart from the previous final order under which the children live with their mother and see their father. That order was a child focused solution which met the needs of the children following their parents separation.

However, if it cannot then the Court must consider how a relationship can be achieved given the children’s needs demand the same. This may require the involvement of the local authority and space for the children to have a relationship with their father. I do not seek a plan which may lead to the children being removed from their mother but I wish to make clear it cannot be ruled out if she continues to stand in the way of a relationship between father and children. I make it clear taking the children to contact is not facilitating the contact if it is surrounded by hostility and negativity on her part.

With this in mind this judgment stands as both a fact-finding exercise and a pointer towards the future. I intend to adjourn the case to enable the following:

This case will be adjourned to 10am on 10 November 2025 before me. The Local Authority are invited to attend.

It should be clear to the mother that I am giving her a chance to make a change in her approach to contact between the children and father. This may be a final chance if she demonstrates an inability to do so. I encourage her to take this opportunity and to make the most of it. I would like to allow these children to return to the arrangements of 2021 but this will not happen without her supporting the same.