Reuben (A Child), Re

This case concerns a nine-year-old boy who I will refer to by the pseudonym Reuben. He supports Liverpool and would like to be a professional footballer when he grows up. His father is Daniel (a pseudonym) who with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Father. His mother is Jane (a pseudonym) who likewise, with no disrespect intended I will refer to as the Mother. Reuben has historically lived with his mother, in her home with the family cat. A lodger also lives at the address. Reuben has also historically spent time with his father and his father’s partner in their home.

This oral judgment was given at the conclusion of a 2-day final hearing heard in the Family Court at Worthing over 29-30 September 2025. Because of the unusually long and protracted history that has led to the parties being here today, I am going to set out the chronology in some detail.

Reuben’s parents met and moved in together at the start of 2015. Reuben was born shortly thereafter in May 2016. The parties separated in June that same year when Reuben was just one month old. In the context of that breakup, the Mother alleged that she experienced domestic abuse during her relationship with the Father. This took the form of purported verbal abuse and physically threatening behaviour, such as the Father slapping his own head or throwing items. She also had concerns about the Father’s alcohol use. These allegations have never been subject to findings of fact or determination, in these or indeed any other proceedings.

Since his parents’ separation, the majority of Reuben’s young life has been consumed with four different sets of court proceedings.

The First Application for a child arrangements order was made by the Father in December 2016. This was triggered by Reuben’s mother having suspended any contact with the Father. An alcohol hair strand and liver functioning test was undertaken by the Father in that case, which concluded that he had no issues with alcohol dependence. District Judge Taylor made an order for interim contact in a contact centre on 2 March 2017 and declined to order a fact-finding hearing on allegations deemed then to be historic.

A substantive section 7 report (the first of many) was undertaken on 1 June 2017. It recommended a stepped increase in unsupervised contact leading to the introduction of overnight stays by the time Reuben was 3 years old. That report concluded that, “the incidents described [of alleged abuse] happened in the context of a highly stressful relationship which became toxic. There is no pattern of physical abuse, nor is there any post separation harassment. The emails presented by the Mother as evidence of harassment would seem to me to reflect a parent desperately wanting to see their child as opposed to a sustained campaign of harassment.” The parties then agreed a final order via mediation in August 2017 reflecting the recommended increase of contact.

The Second Application was brought by the Father in 2018 when Reuben was 2 years old. That application was to vary the existing Child Arrangements Order made in August 2017, and to progress to the stage of contact as had been agreed and set out within the pre-existing order. The safeguarding letter in that case dated 22 May 2018 recorded that the Mother, “has noticed that since the alternate Saturday contact started, Reuben has become more aggressive after contact and thinks he may be struggling with the increase. Reuben has been hitting out, biting and slapping her as well as hitting out at other children. Therefore, she is opposing the Father’s application to progress contact.”

At this time the Mother requested a psychological assessment of Reuben due to her concerns about his changing behaviour and her wanting a space for him to explore his feelings. The Mother accordingly engaged a Child Adolescent Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist to engage Reuben in therapy when he was aged just 2 years old.

The Second Application resulted in a second final order made by Deputy District Judge Mills, concluded after mediation on 29 March 2019. This was for Reuben to live with his Mother and spend time with his father on Wednesdays, collecting from nursery, and every other weekend from Friday from after nursery/school until Sunday at 4.30pm, along with some additional time such as 4 hours for Father’s Day. Further increases in holiday contact were also agreed within that order.

It was only one month later in April 2019 that the Father issued the Third Application for enforcement. The Father alleged that the Mother had moved Reuben to a new nursery and had withheld the details from him, effectively terminating any contact. The Mother had a very different narrative around the cessation of nursery attendance which was intertwined with intractable financial disputes between the parties. The Mother reported the Father to the police. He was arrested prior to an ordered contact session but this was ultimately subject to no further police action. Indeed, all police involvement has concluded with no further action.

The Father was at this time concerned that Reuben was engaged in therapy at such a young age, considering him too young for such an interventionist approach.

The Covid pandemic then sadly intervened in proceedings. Although a substantive section 7 report was undertaken on 24 April 2020, the Cafcass officer who authored the report was unable to meet Reuben due to lockdown. The officer was therefore unable to make positive recommendations, having not been able to ascertain Reuben’s wishes and feelings. The report observed the recurring concerns of the Mother that, “[she] is concerned about Reuben’s behaviour after returning from time with the Father. She said that this can last for anything up to two weeks. He can be withdrawn, tearful and unable to look at his mother or follow instruction. There are times when his behaviour is more extreme, he runs off, tries to get to dangerous items he shouldn’t play with, and is aggressive to his mother and other people. Reuben started having night terrors about a week after he first had an overnight stay with the Father.” The report also observed that the Mother’s referral of Reuben to play therapy was in conjunction with advice received from his GP.

On 6 November 2020 the parents again concluded another consent order, formalised by District Judge Collins, following their again attending mediation. This essentially reflected their agreement for continuation of the child arrangements set out in the previous order.

There followed a two-and-a-half-year period of relative stability from the end of November 2020 until the Spring of 2023. By this time Reuben was having overnight contact with his father one night in the week per fortnight, with a teatime visit from 3pm – 6pm on the intervening week, and every other weekend on a Friday from after school, returning to his mother’s house on Sunday afternoons.

In 2023 Reuben was diagnosed with an illness which has since necessitated frequent monitoring of blood tests and urine, along with regular hospital appointments. That illness is well controlled and will resolve by adulthood. Reuben was also diagnosed with autism during that same year. The Mother refused the Father any rights of attendance for Reuben’s various medical appointments pertaining to these diagnoses and treatments.

This current set of proceedings marks the Fourth Application, brought under case numberSD23P20317 on 8 April 2023. The Father’s C100 stated, “The child's contact with the Applicant was intended to progress, but the Respondent has not allowed this. The Applicant now applies for a Child Arrangements Order defining the child's time with him. He requests equal time for each parent on a week on week off basis and shared school holidays.” The Mother responded on 24 August 2023 by a C1A setting out various health concerns relating to Reuben and his ASD diagnosis. She also sought a non-molestation order and a specific issue order regarding Reuben’s hospital appointments. No such orders were ever made.

The Father’s contact with Reuben was then suspended by the Mother in September 2023, leading the Father to make an enforcement application in September 2023. The suspension of contact followed the Mother reporting that Reuben’s behaviour had significantly deteriorated following a 5-day family holiday with his father in Spain. Reuben’s school attendance was significantly impaired at this time too. The Mother attended A&E in September 2023, but the medical professionals did not make any additional medical diagnoses. However, concern was expressed about Reuben’s presenting unruly behaviour and mental health.

District Judge Melville-Walker considered the case on the papers at a second gatekeeping appointment in the autumn of 2023. He ordered the release into proceedings of all previous case papers, and directed that the court would consider the making of a s.91(14) order and the appointment of a guardian.

The first hearing was before Deputy District Judge Parsons on 18 December 2023 who directed the filing of a section 7 report by 15 April 2024. She also directed the listing of a further DRA on 22 January 2024, the Father having not attended the December hearing under the misunderstanding that it had been vacated.

At that January 2024 hearing before Deputy District Judge Elliott the extant child arrangements order was not expressly discharged or suspended. Rather there was a separate paragraph of the directions order entitled “Fortnightly updates” providing that “The Mother must provide fortnightly written updates to the Father in respect of Reuben, the first such update to be received by the Father by 4pm on 5th February 2024.” The implication of the same was that the previous order was indeed suspended, or at least not to be enforced until further order. A recital confirmed that, “the Mother confirming that she is opposed any type of contact, direct or indirect as she is of the view it is emotionally harmful for the child”.

A Dispute Resolution Appointment took place on 22 April 2024 before District Judge Spanton whereby the Mother was ordered to “make Reuben available for contact with his father as follows: i. Every Saturday from 9.30am – 1.30pm starting on Saturday 4th May 2024 unless and until the court orders otherwise.” The appointment of a rule 16.4 Guardian was also ordered, despite the strong objections of the Mother. Within weeks of that order, the Mother applied to the court to vary down the contact from weekly to fortnightly.

That application was heard and declined by Deputy District Judge Parsons on 28 May 2024. Notwithstanding the same, the Mother applied again only weeks later to vary, and in fact, to cease all direct contact between Reuben and his father. Her C2 dated 15 July 2024 stated, “The Mother considers that further direct contact for Reuben at this stage would be detrimental to his wellbeing.”

The matter then came before me for the first time on 1 August 2024. Because of my significant concerns about the protracted litigation history and lack of judicial continuity I reserved the case to myself for all future hearings. I dismissed the Mother’s application to suspend contact and directed weekly Saturday contact between Reuben and his father from 9:30am-1:30pm. I also declined an oral application of the Mother to appoint an expert assessment of Reuben to opine as to the causation of his alleged poor behaviour following contact with the Father. It was recorded at this hearing that the Father had changed his position to seek a change of residence for Reuben to live with him rather than for shared care.

The first Guardian’s report was filed on 15 October 2024 which concluded that, “there is no evidence that supports that Reuben is experiencing harm while he is in the care of his father, and he has consistently reported that he wishes to see him and spend time with him, at his home.” There was a recommendation for increase in time towards shared residence. The Guardian also sought time for further consideration as to whether there should be a change of residence to the Father, pending assessment of the increase in Reuben’s time with his father.

The matter next came before me for a further Dispute Resolution Appointment on 22 October 2024. There I dismissed the Mother’s written application for a child psychological assessment of Reuben which had been filed on 27 September 2024. I also increased Reuben’s contact with his father to fortnightly staying weekend contact along with every Wednesday after school from 3pm to 6pm. Because of the inability of the parents to agree Christmas arrangements and the constraints on listing time before me, I also directed a single-issue hearing to address the Christmas arrangements before Family Magistrates on 9 December 2024.

That hearing proceeded and resulted in the Mother being ordered to make Reuben available for contact with his father from 22 December 2024 to 26 December 2024, and from 31 December 2024 to 3 January 2025.

On 28 February 2025 the Mother filed yet another C2 application to vary contact, opposing any extension of time for Reuben to be spending Sunday evenings with his father. This was refused at a Dispute Resolution Appointment before me on 13 March 2025. There I drew up a comprehensive child arrangements schedule. This progressed arrangements so that Reuben would be alternating weeks with his parents by the time of the summer holidays, continuing thereafter on an alternating weekly pattern into the autumn term until the Final Hearing. An addendum guardian report was also ordered in accordance with my listing the matter for a final hearing in September, preceded by a pre-trial review.

During the Summer of 2025, the Mother sought (via correspondence with the Father’s solicitors) to again reduce the amount of time that Reuben was ordered to spend with his father, citing an alleged negative impact on Reuben’s emotional and physical wellbeing. This was not agreed to by the Father.

The Guardian filed an addendum report on 1 September 2025 recommending that Reuben change his residence to his father, spending alternate weekends and Wednesday nights with his mother.

The PTR went ahead on 4 September 2025 where it was confirmed that the issues for the final hearing would be (i) whether there should be a change of residence, (ii) what time Reuben should spend with either parent, and (iii) what school Reuben ought to attend. This third issue arose because the Mother sought a change of school for Reuben to attend one nearer to her address, her having moved to a neighbouring town which was approximately a 15–20-minute drive from the Father’s home.

As a result, the final hearing took place to address those three issues which were not agreed.

The court has a core bundle of 474 pages. There are also two additional bundles; a 2,199-page supplementary bundle containing exhibits from the parties’ numerous statements, historic position statements, and papers from the previous sets of proceedings. There is also a separate 670-page ‘Local Authority Bundle’ consisting of a multitude of historic Local Authority documents such as Mash referrals, contact records and Early Help enquiries and summaries. It is striking to stand back and appreciate that Reuben’s 9-year life has already been consumed by these 3,200+ pages. It is also unfortunate that agreement could not be reached to exclude the vast amount of extraneous documentation, given how little of it was actually referenced or referred to me during the final hearing.

Even with that volume of paperwork having been permitted by me at PTR (for pragmatic reasons to avoid any potential complaint that I had not had regard to any critical historic documents), the Mother applied to adduce yet a further bundle of 21 pages on the first morning of the Final Hearing, and to adduce a further document on the morning of the second day. For reasons given in short oral case management decisions, I admitted the former, but not the latter.

Despite the resource and attention applied to the conceptual preparation of the court bundles, I was once again led to bemoan the failure to ensure that the same had been prepared for the use of witnesses. It was not until 10.15 on the first morning that the parties became aware that there were neither any paper bundles nor a digital tablet or screen preloaded with the bundles for the witness box.  I have previously observed that on a routine basis, the District Bench is confronted with managing the prosaic yet pressing administrative concern relating to provision of bundles. An inadvertent consequence of the welcome move to a digital court environment is the failure to ensure that an accessible witness bundle is provided for use during the hearing. I had ordered the provision of a witness bundle in this case, but that order had been overlooked. In light of the diminishing court resource generally available to the District Bench which is generally not clerked, it is beyond the administrative ability of the court itself to be checking up on compliance ahead of hearings. The responsibility rests with the lawyers to ensure that such basic directions are followed, whether by the timely provision of a paper bundle or a digital device preloaded with the e-bundle.

This case was also bedevilled by the all-too-common problem that the PDF page numbering of the 4 bundles did not align with the internal numbering of the same. Lawyers and witnesses alike articulated the difficulty that they had in managing the same over the course of the hearing. The President’s Guidance on E-Bundles for use in The Family Court and Family Division published as long ago as December 2021 mandates the following (emphasis added),

“All pages in an e-bundle must be numbered by computer-generated numbering, not by hand. The numbering should start at page 1 for the first page of the bundle (whether or not that is part of an index) and the numbering must follow sequentially to the last page of the bundle, so that the pagination matches the pdf numbering. If a hard copy of the bundle is produced, the pagination must match the e-bundle.”

I note also that the proposed new draft PD27A promulgated by the Family Rules Committee sets out at paragraphs 3.2 and 10.1 that,

“3.2

Even if an e-bundle is filed and served, paper bundle(s) must also be provided to the court by the person who has filed and served the e-bundle- (a) where the court so directs, for use by the judge, by a witness in the witness box at a hearing and/ or by a litigant in person who cannot access an e-bundle; or (b) even if the court does not so direct, where there is a realistic possibility of a witness giving evidence in person in the court.”

“10.1

the computer-generated page numbering must match the PDF “page label” numbering.”

I highlight these points as necessary reminders to practitioners, to ensure that electronic bundles are properly prepared and paginated and made available for witnesses to use in court.

All parties were legally represented during the hearing. The Father by Ms Sayer, the Mother by Mr Valks and Reuben’s Guardian by Mr Bull. I am grateful to them all for their professionalism displayed throughout the hearing.

The issues upon which I need to make a decision have widened slightly since the PTR. They now stand as follows;

The principle of shared holidays/non term time was agreed during the course of the hearing. I had notified the advocates that unless a specific written framework was agreed before the conclusion of proceedings, that the court order would have made a default order detailing the mechanics of the same. That was because the court was not willing to countenance the parties going away from court and then seeking to continue to litigate such matters by email, particularly in circumstances where the Mother did not have solicitors on record as acting (her counsel Mr Valks appearing on a Direct Access basis). Thankfully, pragmatic discussions on the second day of the hearing resulted in an agreed schedule of Reuben’s time to be spent with his parents during holidays/non-term time.

The mother has also changed her historic position with regard to the term-time arrangements. She now offers a fortnightly pattern whereby Reuben would spend Thursday after school until Monday drop-off at school with his father during Week 1, and for overnights on Wednesdays in Week 2. This is equivalent to five nights out of fourteen. As a ‘fallback’ position, she would otherwise prefer that the weekly alternating pattern continues rather than there be a change of residence to the Father.

In considering this case, my fundamental and paramount concern is the welfare of Reuben, as set out in s.1(1) of the Children Act 1989. Although I may not expressly address them all, I also have regard in my judgment to the factors set out in what is known as the ‘Welfare Checklist’ as set out in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989 as follows;

I observe also that there is currently a legal presumption under s.(2A) of the Children Act 1989 that - unless the contrary is shown - the involvement of the Father in the life of Reuben will further his welfare. It is also recognised that any delay will be prejudicial to Reuben’ welfare. Finally I also record that where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under the Children Act 1989 in a case like this, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all (“the No-order principle”).

The standard of proof is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities. The law operates a binary system, so if a fact is shown to be more likely than not to have happened, then it happened, and if it is shown not to cross that threshold, then it is treated as not having happened.

Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the judge's rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied them that it did. But, generally speaking, a judge ought to be able to make up their mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof;

The court can have regard to the inherent probabilities of events or occurrences; the more serious or improbable the allegation the greater the need for evidential 'cogency'.

Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.

The court must consider and take into account all the evidence available. My role here is to survey the evidence on a wide canvas, considering each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to any necessary conclusions.

My function in resolving disputes of fact in the family court is fundamentally different from the role of the judge and jury in the Crown Court. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Re R [2018] EWCA Civ 198 at §61, "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".

Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 provides that when a court disposes of any application for an order under the Act it can make an order that no application for an order under that Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without the leave of the court. This applies whether or not it makes any other order in response to the application. An order under section 91(14) does not stop an application being made to the court. Rather is serves as a protective filter made by the court, in the interests of children. The effect of a such an order is to restrict an applicant who would otherwise have an automatic entitlement to apply to the court for an order from being able to do so.

PD 12Q of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 now gives considerable scope for the use of s.91(14) orders in appropriate cases. The child's welfare remains the court's paramount consideration. Other circumstances outlined in paragraph 2.3 in which the court may make a s.91(14) order may include:

When considering transfer of residence from one parent to another, the case of Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam) confirms that the test concerning the transfer of a child's residence in is simply based on a comprehensive analysis of the child's welfare under the Children Act 1989. At §54 MacFarlane P clarified that he wished to distance himself from the language used in Re: A (Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 1141 “insofar as it refers to a decision to change the residence of a child as being “a weapon” or “a tool”. Whilst such language may be apt in discussion between one lawyer and another in the context of consideration of the forensic options available to a judge who is seeking to move a case on, such language, in my view, risks moving the focus of the decision-making away from the welfare of the child which must be the court's paramount consideration.” He also confirmed at §61 that while it was a fundamental principle, applicable to every case, that the child, who was the subject of the proceedings, 'shall' be heard, the manner and the degree to which the child was heard would vary from case to case.

The case of AZ v BX (Child Arrangements Order: Appeal) [2024] EWHC 1528 makes it clear that the choice of whether to make a shared lives with order or a lives with/spend time with order is not merely a question of labelling. It is likely to be relevant to the welfare of the subject children and must be made by applying the principles of the Children Act 1989 s1(3). The choice of the form of any lives with order should be considered alongside the division of time and any other parts of the proposed child arrangements order. A shared lives with order may be suitable not only when there is to be an equal division of time with each parent but also when there is to be an unequal division of time. It does not necessarily follow from the fact that the parents are antagonistic or unsupportive of each other that a shared lives with order will be unsuitable.

I am also alert to Poole J’s criticism in that case of the court’s failing in not more closely defining holidays, hence my fallback mechanism for setting shared holidays which was made clear to the parties during the hearing.

In reaching my decision I have heard sworn evidence from both parents and have also read their numerous witness statements. I have also had the benefit of reading the three section 7 reports and the two more recent guardian reports. I also heard further sworn evidence from the Guardian in court. Her views remained consistent with those set out in her final updating report dated 1 September 2025,

The Father was the first to give evidence under affirmation. He was subject to wide ranging cross examination from Mr Valks.

The Father’s demeanour throughout his giving evidence was calm. He came across as thoughtful although his answers were often marked by a lack of specificity. He often circled back around to his primary focus, which was on parenting Reuben as a person in his own right, rather than reducing him to a list of symptoms or diagnoses. He was not discursive or particularly eloquent in his responses, and would often tail off towards the end of a sentence. He was candid in acknowledging that Reuben “has extra needs, and his diagnoses show that those needs require extra support. In my care they are managed very well. I’m not sure what more I can say to the fact.”

He gave examples such as Reuben’s need for general structure and stability, without being straightjacketed to that. He gave examples of Reuben perhaps not being comfortable in certain clothes, or needing more time and care in processing a new experience in which he did not wish to participate. In demonstrating the same he detailed how he counselled Reuben to attend both a swimming lesson and a dentist appointment in perfectly sensitive and appropriate ways. He observed that as a result, there was no hesitation or worry displayed by Reuben on attending a second dental appointment or future swimming lessons with his father.

That said, many of the questions put to him were often drawn on a very broad canvas. They revealed a binary resting at the heart of this case. Should the Father parent Reuben as though he was behaving how the Mother reports, any more than the Mother should parent Reuben as though he were behaving how the Father reports? After all, the Father has been consistent in his written and oral evidence that, “Reuben's time with me has been nothing less than enjoyable. When in my care he is a bright, confident and happy child who enjoys spending time with his family and friends, and particularly, playing football.” He was clear that but for a few occasional minor headaches, he had not witnessed the sort of chronic emotional meltdowns reported by the Mother, or any consistent or troubling physical symptoms outside of those typically experienced by a young child of Reuben’s age.

He was realistic in admitting that Reuben has never evinced a desire to transfer his residence to his father, whilst at the same time pointing out the nuance of the fact that Reuben has consistently stated that he would like to spend more time with him.

When asked about matters outside of his own direct knowledge he was honest and precise. When it was put to him that Reuben’s medical susceptibility to infections were what had led to his decreased school attendance when with his mother, he replied, “I am unaware of what exact reasons he’s been unwell enough to go to school.”

When asked about his hope for the future, I accepted his evidence as honest that he had a genuine desire for him and the Mother to be able to mutually attend Reuben’s medical appointments and to improve communication by use of a family communication app. In response to a slim line of questions from Mr Bull, he stated, “I have always promoted it [Reuben’s relationship with his mother] for want of a better word. I’m never negative about his mother in front of him. He clearly loves his mum and he should spend time with her. It’s certainly not for me to cut the Mother off. It would be a bit of extra reassurance that the Mother was contactable via his phone my phone as and when he needed to.”

The Mother then gave evidence for the best part of three hours during the afternoon of the first day under affirmation. The tenor of her evidence, particularly when subject to cross-examination from Ms Sayer, was of a markedly different tone. It was combative, expressive and far more colourful and wide-ranging. Her answers were almost exclusively lengthy and often tangential. There were frequent flashpoints of disagreement. On occasion the Mother was correctly and necessarily precise in clarifying an historic point of detail. At other times, her evidence was unreliable and inconsistent with the objective factual points evidenced in the contemporaneous documentation.

For example, when it was put to her that she had again applied to stop the Father’s time with Reuben in July 2024 she replied “No I’m sure that’s not right.” This is despite the fact that there is a C2 on the court file dated 15 July 2024 stating, “The mother seeks to vary the interim contact so that there is no direct contact between Reuben and his father…The mother considers that further direct contact for Reuben at this stage would be detrimental to his wellbeing.” Likewise when it was put to her that she applied to reduce the Guardian’s structured increase of contact between Reuben and his father in February 2025 she replied “I don’t believe I did.” Again, this was contradicted by the signed C2 application she made on 26 February 2024 to vary down that very same contact.

She was adamant in her oral evidence that she had not labelled the father an ‘abuser’ of Reuben. When the Guardian’s report of 15 October 2024 was put to her as follows,

“More importantly, there are times when Reuben is not receiving medical treatment due to his extreme behaviours, which is crucial to his welfare and physical needs. I asked the Mother directly that given the importance of this issue, and as Reuben is not presenting in this way with his father, had she considered allowing the Father to take him for appointments. Her response was initially scornful that I would suggest allowing his “abuser” and the cause of his behaviour to take him, and also that Reuben has said that he does not want his father to take him. I was concerned by this response, not least because it is not for a child to make decisions about something as important as medical treatment and if it is likely that he would be calm enough to receive treatment with his father present, this must surely be the priority,”

the Mother’s response was, “I didn’t say that. I think she’s got confused.”

It was likewise put to her that the previous Early Help worker had also documented that the Mother had alleged that Reuben was exposed to abusive behaviour from his Father. The Mother again disagreed with the summary of that evidence, stating “It’s incredibly difficult to sit here and contradict that. But that is not what happened in Early Help.” She disagreed with the evidence reported in the Guardian’s report from the Early Help worker that, “[the Mother] “always had her own agenda which did not match the Service…most visits were “taken up by [the Mother] pursuing a narrative of Reuben being uncomfortable about spending time with his father”. The Mother’s response was simply, “the evidence is completely contrary to this.”

Again, when taken to a school record from 19 September 2023 which reported,

“School have never had a problem with dad, always amenable and easy to speak with. Mum was not keen for school to speak with dad. Mum has told school she will sedate Reuben to get him into school. Mum has now said she will not take Reuben into school as school said they couldn’t stop dad taking Reuben with him because he has PR. School looked into the medication mum disclosed, this is an antihistamine. School concerned about Reuben’s welfare with his mum and said they feel he would be safer with his dad…School concerned mum is provoking the behaviours as when they were speaking with her on the phone it was silent, mum asked them to hold on as she needed to speak to Reuben and it was then that Reuben started screaming…Mum reported to school that she had taken Reuben to hospital as he wasn’t able to weight bear but had taken him out on a bike ride in the afternoon,”

the Mother disagreed with this summary. She stated, “I am not keeping him away from school or teachers or friends. I work with them to keep him in school.”

In perhaps the most critical diversion from a professionally recorded observation, it was put to her that the Guardian had been taken aback at how aggressively Reuben responded to her initial visit to his home, where the report observed,

“Not only was Reuben aggressively rejecting my even being in the home, but he also threw stones at the window where I was sitting, kicked a football in my direction. At no point did the Mother intervene or address this behaviour when it was directed at me, and only intervened when there became a risk that he may break the glass by kicking a football at the door…It was only later when Reuben continually kicked a football at a glass door that the Mother warned Reuben she would remove the ball, and then attempted to do so. At this point, Reuben’s behaviour became significantly violent and aggressive towards his mother, kicking and hitting her and screaming in her face. At the time, she appeared powerless to manage this, however calmed him by allowing him to watch TV.”

The Mother’s response in evidence was to state that it was ‘quite normal’ for a neurodivergent child to act in this way, and that he was “not shockingly rude no.” This was odd, because in an IFD Referral from 2024, there is an entry from 5 June 2024 recording that “[the Mother] said Reuben’s Guardian came over and saw Reuben "go ballistic and attack me"”. This is again demonstrative of the inconsistency of the Mother’s evidence.

When questioned about this same incident later, the Guardian stated,

“It was absolutely shocking. There’s no other word for it. Reuben refused to even come into same room. He was in the dog’s bed screaming and shouting, refusing to come in. Later when I was inside he was throwing stones at the window and kicking ball at the window. It wasn’t just about refusal to engage, it was the looks and the shouting that were really aggressive. What was so shocking was that there was no reason for it. I couldn’t fathom what would cause that behaviour.”

It was clear that the Mother’s position placed highly significant, if not determinative weight, on Reuben’s wishes and feelings as purportedly disclosed to her. At one point she stated, “as far as Reuben thinks it’s a foregone conclusion that he gets what he asked for.” This was a highly revealing comment giving significant insight into the power dynamic at play between Reuben and his mother. This was closely bound up with her consistent refrain that she was the only person who was able to understand and meet Reuben’s needs, and that his Father was simply incapable of understanding and meeting the complex multidimensional presentation of their son. When it was put to her that she believed that the Father could not meet Reuben’s needs like she could, she simply stated, “absolutely.”

A question was put to the Mother regarding a text message exchange between the Father and Reuben, where Reuben had sent a message saying, “Hi Daddy just wanted to say last time was too long and I felt funny when I came home and I was missing mummy next time can you tell me how long I’m gonna stay [emoji].” Before the Father replied, another message was sent by Reuben only 2 minutes later saying, “Mummy didn’t force me to say this”. The Mother’s response was “I haven’t had anything to do with that.” She revealed no curiosity or perplexity as to why Reuben would have felt it necessary to add such an odd coda to what was a relatively adult and mature first message.

When asked if she was not reassured by the observations that Reuben appeared to be thriving both at school and in his father’s care in more recent times, her emphatic reply was illuminating. “He is struggling with his father’s care. Just because he’s not showing it there it doesn’t mean he’s not. I don’t believe it, I know it.” This declaration was made in no uncertain terms.

Her evidence was punctuated by moments of wholly understandable raw and vulnerable emotion. When asked how she would cope with the proposed change, she replied with her voice catching “I almost can’t put it into words. It’s unconscionable to move him after living with me for nine years.”

I myself asked two short questions at the conclusion of her evidence and here the Mother’s guard was down and she was far quieter and more tender in response. It was revealing that she referred to Reuben as a “home boy”, stating that “he needs to be at home with his mum. His favourite thing is watching tv on the sofa with me.” It was clear from my assessment that this identification of Reuben’s need was also wholly intertwined with perhaps a reciprocal need of hers.

The Guardian gave her oral evidence during the morning of Day 2 alongside her two substantive reports from October 2024 and September 2025. She was a very experienced and confident witness who engaged very forcefully with questioning, particularly when cross-examined by Mr Valks. She confirmed that her recommendation remained the same; namely for a change of residence to Reuben’s father, and for term times to have a fortnightly pattern of every other weekend from Friday after school to Monday school drop off, along with an overnight stay every Wednesday.

She elaborated on her concerns that the Mother was not able to offer the calm and stable lifestyle that the Father could. She stated that, “It is stark that the presentation of Reuben with the Mother and Father could be of a completely different child. It is as different as night and day, and at school as well.” She considered it ‘stunning’ to read that the Mother had placed Reuben into therapy at the young age of two for management of his behaviour.

Despite her general and genuine professionalism, it was abundantly clear that her relationship and engagement with the Mother was fractured. This is perhaps unsurprising given the complaints made by the Mother against her, but the Guardian made it plain that the Mother’s behaviour had been consistently aggressive and hostile towards her, and her conclusion was that this was because the Guardian was not simply ‘going along’ with the narrative presented by the Mother. When put to her that she should have considered recusing herself, she quite fairly observed, “If we recuse ourselves every time a parent doesn’t like what we are saying we would never complete a report.” She later said that, “What I actually found, was that there are things the Mother has said that were untrue and inaccurate. Her complaints against me weren’t true and inaccurate. I have found her incredibly hostile throughout. She is incredibly inflexible in her thinking. She finds it hard to think beyond was already set in her mind”

On the topic of Reuben’s neurodiversity she considered it atypical to have a school expressing such genuine surprise at a relatively late diagnosis. She observed that originally “the usual pathway for these sorts of diagnosis comes from school, it flows from school noticing difficulties in certain areas, the child psychologist getting involved and a pathway assessment following. It is interesting that the school had not picked up on anything. It is important that this demonstrates how Reuben presents at school, that is not obviously as a child with additional needs.”

She was not satisfied that it was credible to conclude that Reuben either was, or even had the ability to, mask his behaviour for such prolonged periods of time in school and with his father. She highlighted her twenty years of experience in dealing with neurodivergent children and training in masking in forming this view. In a telling narrative she stated, “I have observed Reuben with his father on more than one occasion. It is not just that he is not kicking-off. I have watched his body language, how he responds, the jokes, the eye contact, all those sort of things which demonstrate how comfortable, how natural this feels. I would say that the view he is simply hiding his true feelings, that he is not happy or comfortable, again he is nine years old. Before that he was much younger. Children have instincts that they can’t consistently control. I have acted with children gritting teeth getting through it. All social workers would be able to pick that up immediately. I have seen Reuben be cheeky, stroppy, laughing and joking, and also physically affectionate. There is nothing to believe he is simply putting this on. The idea he would not want the Father anywhere near a medical appointment seems nonsense to me.”

The Guardian opined that the types of heightened and concerning behaviours reported by the Mother mapped onto cases of extreme trauma, which had no explicable basis in Reuben’s case or life experience.

Her evidence was consistent that Reuben’s presentation on the autistic spectrum was of a more minor symptomatic manifestation. She observed that autism was not a binary switch and that, “there is a wide spectrum of different issues for a person. Different elements of severity and not severity.” In a general sense - although not a medical diagnosis - she said it would be fair to describe Reuben as ‘high achieving’ to reflect his excellent grades, good social status, close friendships, good social skills, and high functioning mobility and dexterity. She considered the support that was at hand from the school to be low-level and more generic; a more accommodating approach to uniform, reminders to drink water and use the bathroom, along with additional transition support. The engagement with play therapy in the school was part of what was termed ‘the standard school offer’.

As compelling as the Guardian’s evidence was, there was a slim line of critique that was fair, that her reporting had not expressly addressed the views of previous Cafcass reports, or some of the mosaic documents. That said, it was also a fair counter-observation of the Guardian to make that it was not her role to critique other professionals, and that her engagement with Reuben had been far deeper and more wide-ranging than the previous standard section 7 reports. She was at pains to point out that she had gone ‘above and beyond’ in working very deeply and thoroughly with Reuben over the time of her appointment.

Aside from the oral evidence, I have also had regard to the huge mass of documentary evidence, only a fraction of which I have been invited to read. I have taken significant additional time out of court to read the entirety of the Supplementary bundle and the majority of the Local Authority bundle. I will not cite all of the pertinent documentation, but simply highlight a select few excerpts in my judgment as follows.

Reuben’s recent school report from the end of Year 4 made for very positive reading. He had an attainment level of 1 across the board. Likewise his effort was recorded at an impressive B across all subjects. No reference was made to his neurodiversity or any need for additional support. A letter from June 2025 indicated the provision of low level generic support as was highlighted by the Guardian in her oral evidence.

An Early Help Closure Record from 15 May 2024 recounted an A&E attendance that “Mum is now really struggling to control his behaviour…In A&E Reuben was hitting the doctor, throwing toys around the waiting room and swearing.”

The outcome letter of Reuben’s ASD assessment dated 4 November 2023 included the following observation, “A Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was completed by Reuben's class teacher on 29/03/23. Reuben was rated 'close to average' across the subscales of 'emotional distress', 'behavioural difficulties', 'hyperactivity and concentration difficulties', 'difficulties getting along with other children' and for 'impact of any difficulties on the child's life' and in the 'overall stress' measure. The measure of 'kind and helpful' behaviour fell in the 'very low' range, but this was likely impacted by his teacher not responding to one item. These scores contrasted with Reuben's mother's responses to the SDQ, completed via the DAWBA online questionnaire. Here her score for emotional distress was 'very high', along with the impact on Reuben's life. Her scores in the domains of behavioural difficulties and total difficulties were 'high' and the measure of difficulties getting along with other children 'slightly raised'. The difference in these scores indicates the different presentation seen in Reuben at home and school, as well as the level of concern at home, not currently echoed at school.”

A letter from a paediatric doctor from 22 November 2023 letter stated, “I first saw Reuben in a Paediatric clinic at hospital on 15th August 2022 along with his mother. From the outset Reuben has been difficult to assess due to challenges with his behaviour (this was mentioned in the initial GP referral).”

A letter from another doctor dated, 22 November 2023 stated, “I assessed Reuben as part of a tertiary multidisciplinary neurodevelopmental assessment which commenced on 21st April 2023 and we issued our final report on 4th November 2023. We have concluded that Reuben has a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. This is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition but we expect a positive prognosis currently as Reuben presents with several strengths like social interest and good educational functioning at present. We are not providing any current or further follow-up as part of our typical service remit”

The documentary evidence shows that Reuben had historically low school attendance when with living with the Mother, sometimes in the 70% range. An undated IFD referral from the latter part of 2024 showed at one point his attendance was as low as 68.6%. I accept that some absence may have been attributable to his medical illness but the majority was not, or at least not directly so. His settled prognosis only necessitated a planned absence once every 3 months for a hospital visit. In contrast ‘School refusal” was reported to account for 8.7% of absences in April 2024 alone. The IFD referral from 2024 likewise stated, “Reuben has become a school refuser, he doesn’t want to leave mum.” It also records that, “[the Mother] feels he [the Father] is emotionally abusive to her son” giving an example of his allegedly making Reuben smile for a photo.

There was a constant refrain in the historic documentation from various professionals and the local authority that the acrimonious breakdown of relationship between the parties was feeding into Reuben’s poor behaviour. The lack of open communication combined with immense acrimony were noted to be extreme stressors in the case.

A Cafcass referral from 10 April 2024 stated that, “I have spoken to Reuben who has expressed a wish to spend time with his father. The Mother reports Reuben’s behaviour improved following the stopping of contact, however this will have also stopped Reuben’s exposure to any conflict. I have not identified any risk that justifies preventing the Father spending time with Reuben and as a result I am worried he will be at risk of emotional harm once again due to a change in arrangements.”

The Cafcass section 7 report from April 2024 included letters written from Reuben to the report author, including one that read, “No daddy taking me to hospital.” It later recorded a meeting with Reuben that recounted the following, “Reuben told me Mum played yesterday for ages, but he had not played with Dad for a while. I asked if he knows why this change happened and he shrugged. I asked Reuben if he felt this was a good change and he said “No”. Reuben said he “missed Dad” and wanted to see him. Reuben said he would like to see Dad at “his house” (Dad's house). I asked if there was anything that would worry him about spending time with Dad at his house and he said no. I asked if there were any worries at Mum's house and he said no.” His school attendance at that time was recorded at 73%.

That report also recommended a s.91(14) order as follows, “It is my recommendation because there have been three sets of proceedings with similar findings and the court proceedings are fuelling the conflict which risks emotional harm. There are cross allegations of domestic abuse and both parties are reporting significant stress from proceedings. As these parents need to be mentally healthy for Reuben, it is important a return to court is considered carefully to prevent Reuben being seen repeatedly and the parents experiencing stress or abuse through repeated litigation.”

Following conclusion of the evidence, all advocates gave focused submissions just before lunch, inviting me to accede to their preferred positions. A slim amount of law was cited as set out above and in position statements provided by Ms Sayer and Mr Valks.

Having heard and considered all the evidence in light of the legal framework set out above, I intend to make only very limited findings. This is because it would patently be inappropriate for me to summarily determine so many of the factual disputes that quite literally date back over 9 years now. This ensures that I do not unfairly or prejudicially make determinations against the Mother in respect of what led to previous Child Arrangements Orders either breaking down or being subject to repeat applications. I likewise am not being drawn into any findings of historic allegations of abusive behaviour or alcohol abuse by the Father. The few limited factual findings I make are in the course in my analysis set out below, as conducted through the lens of the welfare checklist.

My resulting decision will be for Reuben to live with both of his parents during term time. The majority of that time will be with his father on a 9:5 division each fortnight, for the following reasons;

the ascertainable wishes and feelings of Reuben (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

his physical, emotional and educational needs;

the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

any harm which Reuben has suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question;

In the light of my analysis and findings above, I make the following order, (to include non term-time arrangements settled between the parents by consent);

All previous child arrangements orders are discharged forthwith.

Reuben shall live with his father and his mother as a final order. The time he shall live with each parent is as follows;

Specific Issue Order

s.91(14) Order

Disclosure

I endorse the Guardian’s proposal for her to meet with Reuben one final time and explain the outcome of this hearing. This will include sharing a joint narrative agreed by the parents, and also an explanation to Reuben that his wishes and feelings were heard and valued but were not determinative and that he should not feel any responsibility for the outcome of this case.

An anonymised and edited record of this oral judgment will be drafted and disseminated to the parties lawyers to ensure that no jigsaw identification remains in place before publication on the National Archives.