The Mother v The Father & Anor

This is the mother’s application, issued on 7 March 2024 [49] to vary the child arrangement order dated 7 June 2023 made by the Lay Magistrates in relation to the parties’ child (“A”) who is under 10 years’ old.

It has taken over 19 months to reach a final hearing. That is an appalling statistic and in part it is attributable to the allegation of sexual abuse in respect of A made by the mother against the father on 13 December 2024. I have sought since April 2025, having taken the case from a District Judge at short notice, to impose some discipline and momentum to the proceedings. I determined that: (a) the matter would be listed for final hearing and not a separate finding of fact; (b) that the father’s allegations of alienating behaviours did not require separate treatment but would form part of his case as to the veracity of the allegations of sexual abuse and/or the welfare issues; (c) I directed the mother to set out her allegation properly; and (d) I directed the Guardian to produce a plan for contact in the event that findings were not made as sought.

Nonetheless, I regret that A has spent much of his life at the centre of proceedings and/or parental discord. That is a significant failure of parenting for which both parents ultimately bear responsibility. Unless they change then either A will remain mired in a dysfunctional situation or the Local Authority will assess whether they need to issue care proceedings. The Family Court will not spend the next 11 years applying sticking plasters at huge cost to the parties and the public to no good end.

The child at the centre of these proceedings and Second Respondent is A born [redacted]. He is represented by his solicitor, Vicky Withers, who takes her instructions from his children’s Guardian, Naomi Emery.

The Applicant was born on [redacted] and is A’s mother. She is represented by her counsel, Hannah Whelan. I shall refer to her as “the mother”.

The First Respondent was born on [redcated] and is A’s father. He is represented by his counsel, Stephen Murray. I shall refer to him as “the father”.

Within this final hearing, I find that the mother has not proved on the balance of probabilities that A was sexually abused by his father as alleged [215].

I find that this is not a case in which the mother has been responsible for a pattern of alienating behaviour. The mother’s behaviour must be seen in the context of the acrimonious parenting relationship between the parties. A’s reaction must be seen in the context of him being in the centre of such dysfunction and aligning himself with the mother for reasons which are justified.

I find that an order should be made that A will live with his mother. There will be an order for reasonable contact to his father in accordance with a clear plan with reviews after 12 weeks, 24 weeks and before the conclusion of the family assistance order which I will make for 12 months directed to [Local Authority X]. That will provide a clear roadmap as I shall endeavour to explain within this judgment.

I will make section 91(14) order against both parents for a period of 2 years to provide respite to A and the impetus for both of them to focus on resolution rather than dispute.

The local authority must be provided with a copy of this judgment and in the event that the parents fail to abide by reasonable standards of parenting whereby A is a risk of suffering significant emotional harm then they must assess whether the time has come to issue public law proceedings. The local authority has remained in the background to these proceedings despite being the lead agency and the conclusion of this hearing will bring the prospect of resolution within private law proceedings to an end.

The parties must agree the terms of an order which embody this judgment, the Guardian’s contact plan (where appropriate) and any relevant practical matters.

The mother is a [redacted] working in [redacted] and living in [redacted].

The father is a [redacted]. He has founded his own [redacted] business through which he carries out his [redacted] work. He is living with [a family member] in [redacted].

The parties met in 2015, the relationship progressed quickly, and parties cohabited from the same year and were married in 2017. A, the only child of the family, was born on [redacted]. The marriage ended [in 2022] when the father left the family home.

The parties attended marriage counselling following which the father initiated divorce proceedings [in 2022]. The final order was pronounced in the divorce proceedings [in 2023], 10 days after the conclusion of the first set of child arrangement proceedings. Financial remedy proceedings were issued by the mother [in 2023] and concluded by consent at the FDR hearing [in 2024].

In early January 2023 the father issued an application for a child arrangements order and prohibited steps order to prevent the mother relocating with the child. The mother agreed that she would not move with A to another part of the country during the proceedings and this was recorded on an interim order.

The proceedings concluded at a final hearing on the 7 June 2023 before the Lay Magistrates.

The Lay Magistrates made a shared live with order on 7 June 2023. Essentially, A would stay with his father from after school or nursery on alternate weekends from Thursday until return to school or nursery on the following Monday. He would also see his father from school or nursery every Wednesday until return to the mother's home at 18.00.

The summer holidays were divided so that each parent spent three non-consecutive weeks with A (from summer 2024, 2 of these weeks could be consecutive). Specific provision was made in relation to other holidays or special occasions.

The order provided for facetime contact between A and the father at least once a week. In addition, it was recorded on the order that the parties agreed to use “Appclose” to assist with child arrangements.

The Lay Magistrates also made a prohibited steps order preventing the mother from removing A from the [redacted] area without the consent of the father or further order.

The Lay Magistrates gave their reasons in a written form [30].

They noted that the mother's position was A should have contact with his father on alternate weekends from Friday until Sunday alongside facetime calls during the week and extra contact during school holidays and special occasions.

In a theme which has resonated since that time, the Magistrates noted that “throughout these proceedings both parties have been rigid in their positions and unwilling to engage in negotiations in A’s best interests and have litigated up to the point of a contested final hearing.”

They found both parents were more than capable of meeting all of A's needs as long as they worked together in his best interests. They noted that the parents have “difficulties communicating with one another in relation to child arrangements and the court is mindful that if this continues it will have a detrimental effect on the emotional well-being of A.”

They opined that it was imperative that the parents communicate and find ways of co-parenting collaboratively.

They noted that there were no safeguarding concerns. The father's mental health had been raised as an issue but they had received evidence that he had previously had two episodes of depression in 2017 and 2022 but that he was currently prescribed sertraline and was reacting well to the medication. The father appeared to have been undergoing counselling at that stage and the GP letter noted he had made a good recovery.

In making a child arrangements order, they said this: -

“The Court is disappointed to note that throughout proceedings parties have failed to engage in pre-hearing discussions/negotiations to attempt to resolve matters without the intervention of the Court.

There are many years to come of co-parenting and we would hope that both parents will work together and prioritise A and his best interests. Your relationship is over, but you have to recognise that you are tied together by A. You should therefore behave accordingly by encouraging a positive relationship with A and with the other parent.”

It is unfortunate to report that their exhortations have not been reflected in the behaviour of the parents.

On the 16 August 2023, the father filed an application for enforcement of the final order. The mother filed an application to set aside enforcement and at the hearing on 19 October 2023, following receipt of legal advice, the father withdrew his application.

The current application by the mother was issued on 7 March 2024 [49]. That is about 8 months after the previous proceedings had concluded. By that application, she sought to vary that order.

The mother asserted [58] that there had been numerous issues of concern: (a) A had continued to co-sleep with the father and did not have his own room; (b) A had been distressed and anxious when the father had refused to allow any contact between him and his mother in two 7 day weeks when he was with his father; (c) TAF Meetings at school were arranged but the father was not prepared to participate in a meeting with the mother; (d) on occasions A has arrived at school without his full uniform; (e) the father had been adamant in managing toilet training by waking up A to go to the toilet resulting in inconsistent management between the parents and an exacerbation in A's exhaustion; (f) A has struggled sleeping at the father's house which had become progressively worse resulting in him becoming tired at school. The mother noted that she had raised the issue with school on 12 December 2023 and the father had confirmed to the school that A had not been sleeping well and he is afraid of the tall bunk bed which he had built. It was said that on occasions the father had to put A in the car and drove him round to sleep resulting, on average, in A losing 3 to 4 hours of sleep per night. This was said to have affected his health and his ability to participate at school. The mother complained on 13 January 2024 that A did not arrive at school until lunchtime on one occasion due to exhaustion and ill health and then had to miss several days of school as a result.

It was said that the father had been inconsistent about allowing some facetime contact between A and the mother tending to restrict or remove it by way of punishment to her. This caused A additional distress.

The mother complained that communication had reached such a dire level that the father had resorted to making complaints about her conduct to her employer suggesting that she was abusing her position as a [redacted].

Finally, she relied upon a letter from the school dated 16 February 2024 noting that A presented at school with low mood, a lack of motivation and fatigue. She noted that the school stated that they had emailed the father regarding his bedtime routines with A as they felt that increasing A's nighttime toilet training was likely impacting on A’s disturbed sleep patterns. She noted the school’s concern that A felt pressurised into being out of nappies and that both parents had acknowledged that the father has struggled to get A into a secure bedtime routine and this is a contributing factor to A’s poor immune system.

In other words, if correct, this pattern of issues and complaints reflects rigidity and a failure to communicate and resolve problems in a consistent and collaborative manner.

The application was supported by a C1A [40]. This largely reflects the issues which were canvassed within the application itself. In broad terms, the allegations arise out of inappropriate communication and the failure to work collaboratively and discuss issues appropriately.

The father opposed the application to vary and denied each of the mother’s allegations, stating that the mother would call the Police at handovers for no good reason, that he had ceased with overnight toilet training, that A did not want facetime contact with the mother and when facilitated the calls were too long. The father accepted that there was a sleep issue but that he only co-slept at A’s request and stated that issues regarding communication were due to misunderstanding or the mother seeing him as in the wrong when disagreements occurred. Further the father made an allegation of alienating behaviours against the mother, which he invited the court to consider [91].

A FHDRA hearing was listed on 24 July 2024 [112] during which variations during the summer were agreed, an evening/ sleep routine was agreed and CAFCASS were directed to prepare a section 7 report.

At a DRA hearing on the 14 November 2024 [125], the father indicated to the court that he sought a variation of the final order, so that A would live with him and spend time with the mother or live equally between both parents. The Court determined that a finding of fact hearing was not necessary. CAFCASS were, however, directed to file an addendum report.

As I shall explain, the mother told SW, a social worker working with the family, on 13 December 2024 about comments made to her by A on 11 December 2024, which were regarded as an allegation of sexual abuse by the father. The father was arrested and questioned by Police on 16 December 2024 [141]. At a hearing on 9 January 2025 the proceedings were transferred from the Lay Magistrates to District Judge Wheeler and listed for hearing before him on 26 February 2025.

The next hearing did not take place before District Judge Wheeler but before Recorder Jenkins on 26 February 2025 [163]. At that hearing, A was joined as a party and CAFCASS were invited to allocate an officer to act as his children’s guardian. A prohibited steps order was made preventing any medical assessment, treatment, examination or therapy involving A without both parties’ consent. This was later varied to prohibit the mother from referring the child or allowing the child to be referred to any new counselling/therapy or similar services without father’s written consent or further order of the court. However, the mother was permitted to take the child to routine or emergency medical appointments and required to inform the father and the Guardian. The matter was listed for hearing before District Judge Gordon on 3 April 2025 despite her being on long term sick leave.

The application was then listed before District Judge Wheeler in substitution of District Judge Gordon. I was made aware of the case that day and decided to take it on short notice and reallocate it to myself. Thereafter, I endeavoured to regularise and clarify the issues and the extent of the evidence admitted at hearings on 10 June 2025 [182], 24 July 2025 (at which I listed a final hearing) [210] and 14 October 2025 (PTR) [867]. The extent of management required to ensure this case was managed proportionately was significant.

On 8 April 2024, FIW, family intervention worker, visited the mother and A at home [294]. FIW records that A told his mother that he did not want to stay with his father for 7 days. The mother is reported to have told A that his father had missed him and had lots of nice things planned for them to do together. A became dysregulated. The mother, having answered the front door to the father, returned to ask A if he would speak to his father at the front door for a minute. FIW records that: -

“A you got up and started throwing more toys screaming NO NO NO. You kicked a canvas bag towards me and made contact with my head. Your mum then walked over to you to attempt to calm you down and you began hitting and kicking at her shouting, ‘I do not want to go to dads, I want to stay home’. You then went and locked yourself in your mums room.”

The father then left in order to allow an opportunity for A to calm down. This incident had occurred at about 10.30. The father returned to the property at 11.30 without discussing with the mother a proposal for managing the difficulty. In his oral evidence, the father agreed that he should have stayed away and he should have asked if there was a better way to encourage A to spend time with him at Easter. He accepted that he refused to leave. He raised his voice and told the maternal grandfather to “fuck off”.

I include this example because it is unclear to me what more the mother could have done to encourage A. FIW is able to give an objective account of what occurred. It demonstrates an egregious pattern of decision-making by the father, which served only to compound the difficulties. It highlights his lack of insight into the impact of his actions. Sadly, he has allowed himself to seek comfort in waging a forensic war to the detriment of his son.

From the spring term 2024, the difficulties A was experiencing with sleeping at his father’s home were impacting his education. He is described as experiencing “high levels of fatigue due to poor sleep routine” consequently leaving him susceptible to coughs and colds (TAF Assessment, dated 1 May 2024 [338]). In my judgment, it is axiomatic that if a young child consistently experiences poor sleep alongside emotional disruption then they are likely to be affected in all aspects of their health and functioning. That was likely the case for A.

The school noted [461] that A began sessions with a family support worker on 24 September 2024.

In the minutes of a TAF meeting on 20 September 2024 [383], the following comment by A to FIW was recorded [384]: -

“You also told me "Mummy was upset but I'm not allowed to tell anyone why. You wrote on the board "I love mummy." and you told me "Mummy loves me more than daddy." I asked you how you knew that and you said "Mummy told me. She told me she loves me more than daddy does and that means I love her more than daddy does."

We played a game of snap and while we were playing, I asked you if you knew I was coming to see you. You told me that your mum had told you I was coming. I asked you how you felt about that, and you told me you felt very anxious to see me, because you didn't want to talk. We talked about how I just come to check you're okay and if you want to tell you can or you can choose to go back to class.

you told me "mummy told me to tell you I don’t want to see daddy. She told me what to say.”

The mother said in her oral evidence that during the time she lived with the father, she observed him to be less expressive in feelings than her. She said that there was a time when she did present as upset at night and did not hide that well enough. She suggested that there may have been an element of personal pride in not wanting the father to know that he was upsetting her. She said to A that this was something between “us” at home and something “we” did not need to share.

I illustrate this incident because it should reveal to the mother that her actions served only to undermine A. He was told to keep a secret when he should have felt free to talk about it. It reveals the impact of her comments which place A at the centre of the dispute.

In terms of impact upon A, a similar point can be made with regard to his comment about things that made him feel bad [388]. He describes the mother shouting at him and feeling scared; she apologised and “told [him] that daddy’s friends were making her angry.” The mother’s account was that at a local music festival, the wife of the father’s best friend made inappropriate comments to her after which, A and her left the event. She denied that she had told A of the issue as the note suggests. In my judgment, A was at the centre of dispute again. He clearly understood something of what had happened. He was left to feel “bad”.

In short, within a few short paragraphs of this analysis, the problems attributable to both parents are apparent and are thereafter recycled. The dysfunction reduced the available emotional support to A at school and at home. Rather than be able to talk about his concerns at what he witnessed in his mother’s presentation, A was held to what amounted to a secret. This is the type of behaviour which may well support A aligning himself ever closer with his mother to the detriment of his relationship with the father. The fact that the mother did not immediately realise in her oral evidence why this was such a negative thing to do is indicative of her own lack of insight into the impact of her behaviour on A.

On 25 September 2024, A was described as clinging to his mother and saying that he didn't want to sleep at his daddy’s home. “A told [a staff member] that he was upset because he can't sleep well at his daddy's,” and it was suggested that a special bedtime chest full of things to help him sleep could be prepared. A was excited to show his father the chest when he was collected by him.

The messages passing between the parents from 24 July 2024 to 19 June 2025 are contained in a short addendum bundle paginated from 923 to 928. I have considered them and make reference to them chronologically.

On Monday, 30 September 2024, the mother messages the father to say that A is unwell [923]. The mother confirms on 1 October 2024 that A has croup will not attend school tomorrow. She raises general concerns about his presentation. The father does not appear to reply.

On 10 October 2024, the school report that [462]: “…during drop off A was being carried by his mum. His legs were kicking out and he was shouting "I don't want to leave my Mummy!", "I hate Daddy!". Mum was comforting A and telling him that she understands and that: "You can tell Jessica how you feel". I took A from mum and carried him inside…”

At 09.54, she messaged the father to inform him that she had to “force A into school again. He was so angry because he does not want to come this weekend that he lashed out and tried to kick a child, he has tried to hit and bite another parent and he has kicked [redacted] as she has been trying to pull him off me. I am sorry but A was screaming he does not want to see you and something else quite cruel. Mr [redacted] also witnessed it” [925].

The father appears not to reply.

At 16.23, she asks to speak to A but the father, again, appears not to reply.

In my judgment, the absence of communication is a function of poor communication and an abdication of parental responsibility. It is a vital commodity which requires care and nourishment.

In October 2024, it is alleged that A told the mother that the father had become extremely angry and thrown him on to the bed in the middle of the night, hurting A’s back and that the family member had smacked him on the bottom. The mother informed the father of her concerns and stopped overnight contact. The mother informed CAFCASS of the same (report filed on 30 October 2024 [312]). The father accepted putting A on the bed in a way which may have felt to him that he was being thrown onto the bed.

On 16 October 2024, the school described A as emotionally dysregulated. Children’s social care had received a referral from the mother and had asked the school to complete wishes and feelings work with A.

On 16 October 2024, the mother messages the father to state that A is off school due to tiredness, coughing and a cold. She asked him what he proposes they do about this to which she does not receive any response [925].

The wishes and feelings work carried out by the school with A is contained at 483 to 490. The picture is of a child caught in the midst of the acrimony between his parents (“Mummy cried last night - she went “argh”. It scared me. She cried because of that. Because mummy said daddy keeps hurting her and his friends keep hurting her too. Mum has loads of money and Daddy doesn’t have any because he doesn’t go to work much” [483]). It is all too easy to imagine a child aligning with one parent in an attempt to escape the conflict between them. There is the reference to A witnessing anger or frustration on the part of his mother and her apparently indicating this was because of “daddy’s friends” making her angry [484]. Equally, the father was struggling to manage his anger and frustration. He smacked A and raised his voice on occasions. He was less communicative with the mother. There was a significant amount of conflict for a child to have to manage.

A indicates within that work that he doesn’t sleep very well at the father’s house and wants him to get a bigger house, which his father is doing his best to obtain [485].

He also describes his father becoming angry and using his “[redacted] voice” and being smacked on the bottom by his [family member] because he wouldn’t sleep [486]. He describes becoming angry then his father responding by becoming angry and not allowing A to calm down.

There is a strange and troubling comment recorded that A feels “listened to when someone is shouting” at him [488].

On 17 October 2024, wishes and feelings work was completed with A. When answering the question what he would like to happen, he said that he wanted his father “to start listening to how I feel. I feel happy at mums and not happy at dads”. When answering the question what he didn’t want to happen, he said, “I don’t want to go to dads to sleep or go anymore. I don’t sleep well.”

He describes becoming angry with his mother but cannot explain why he does so. He was worried that on one occasion his mother had stitches and he might have hurt her. He describes feeling sad sometimes when he has to leave his mother and go to school or to his father.

He describes being worried when he is spending time with his father that his mother is doing “fun things without me” and sometimes when he is with his mother he worries that “daddy is doing fun things without me.”

On 24 October 2024, the mother indicated that due to her concerns she intended to collect A from school that day notwithstanding that the father was due to collect him. The message that she sent to the father at 13.58 may be found at 925. Her concern was that A was not sleeping at his father’s property, he was reporting that the father was often angry and this pattern has continued. She observed that shouting at A would not assist in alleviating his problems with sleeping nor smacking him. She makes clear that her action in seeking to stop overnight contact did not impact her willingness to facilitate daytime contact and facetime video contact.

The father responded shortly by stating: “I do not agree at all. I will be at school tonight.”

The mother proposed at 17.02, arranging for A to see the father on Saturday and Sunday from 09.00 until 17.30 [926].

In fairness to the father, he eventually relents and accepts that he will not attend to collect A on 25 October 2025.

The father’s frustration appears to reach a crescendo on 26 October 2024 at 17.05 when he asserts that the mother has broken the court order and is thereby dictating terms. He asserts that there are multiple false allegations, including one of smacking by the [family member]. He asserts that she is attempting to control him and his finances thereby impacting his mental health.

On 5 November 2024, A allegedly told the mother his father had hit him on the bottom and the foot and in addition, the [family member] had hit him on the leg for making a mess. The mother reported the allegations to the Local Authority and CAFCASS [325]. The father deniedthat he or [the family member] had caused physical harm to A.

Jessica Seedwell filed a section 7 report, dated 30 October 2024 [312]. She spoke to both parents for the purposes of her report (8 and 9 October 2024: paragraphs 7 and 8) and visited A at school on 10 October 2024. I would note the following from the report:-

In my judgment, the mother has probably said and done things which have contributed to the process of alignment of A to her and away from his father. I reject the suggestion that this was an orchestrated plan. I reject the suggestion that this was a malevolent attempt to denude the father of his role in A’s life. In my judgment, it is a reflection of the parenting dynamic into which A was thrust. Rather than resolve issues and support A, the lack of trust and communication magnified his anxiety. His description of his father shouting at him or being angry with him is as much an attempt to convey how he felt about being placed in the midst of this dysfunction. His difficulties with sleep were as much a manifestation of the problem as a problem in itself.

On 7 November 2024, the local authority received a referral from the mother expressing concerns for A when in the care of his father (“… A had shared that the father had smacked him and thrown him on the bed repeatedly. Also, that his family member had also shouted at him and smacked him.” [325]).

On 20 November 2024 [494], A again describes wanting his father to start listening to him and complains that he doesn’t like sleeping at his father’s home. He states that he finds it hard to sleep at his father’s house because he is away from “mummy”.

On the same date, according to the Journey to ABE, he said that: -

In December 2024, it is alleged that A informed the mother that he had been told by the father that he would be spending 9 or 11 consecutive days with the father over the Christmas holidays. The mother asserts that she tried to communicate regarding this interpretation of the final order but received no response and resorted to solicitor correspondence on the 11 December 2024. Further letters were exchanged between solicitors as to the issue of when the school holidays were deemed to begin, the parties interpreting the order differently. I accept that A was clearly aware of this impending problem.

Within the wishes and feelings work undertaken at school (notes, dated 24 January 2025 [442]), A is reported to have said the following: -

“Mum told me at Christmas that daddy had me for 9 days, that was some of mummy’s weekend. I do not know how that made her feel.”

The mother accepted that the parties were in dispute about the Christmas arrangements and appeared to accept that she had made comments which would have conveyed the impression to A that the father was having time which A ought to be spending with her. In my judgment, from A’s perspective, there was a growing issue about the length of time he would be spending away from his mother, whether the mother ought to be seeing him for some part of that time and whether he was able to communicate with her. I find it likely that the mother conveyed her anxiety to A about that issue.

There appears to have been an issue that day about A spending time with the father after school according to the mother [264/51]. He returned to his mother at about 18.00.

The first account of the father’s behaviour to A was to the mother. It was not recorded by her in writing at the time.

SW, social worker, prepared a case note on 13 December 2024 regarding a telephone call from the mother that day [407 and notes at 619]. This is the first account of the allegation given by the mother to a professional. It records her explanation that A couldn't really tell her why he didn't want to sleep at his dad’s house – “just that he missed his things and the pet dog. I explained that A was smirking when he was saying these things; his body language didn't reflect that he looked worried about sleeping at dads.”

They appeared to agree that A was desperate for them to be a family again. The conversation continued regarding problems with communication and that the father was not following the court order regarding arrangements over Christmas resulting in her having to deal with a “sobbing child”. The mother was indicating that A was becoming angry about the prospect of spending 9 days with his father. The mother described that A was then crying in the middle of the night because of the prospect of staying with the father and had also been hitting his head.

The note records the following discussion: -

“The mother then said that if ‘A is disclosing things to her, she is now going to raise them’. She said that she doesn't like the fact that school have saying that she is ‘putting information in his mouth’ she feels this is ‘crap’.

Around twenty minutes into the phone call, the mother told me that she wants to tell me something but is ‘taking it as a pinch of salt’. She said that A was speaking to her on Wednesday night, about his soft bunny - he asked where it came from? The mother said, ‘a friend who came to see you in hospital’. A said ‘she didn't see my private parts, did she?’ The mother said ‘we don't show people private parts, don't let people touch them’. A said ‘mummy, daddy [reference to touching] and I don't like it’. The mother asked, ‘what do you mean? In the shower, washing?’ A said ‘no mummy’. The mother said that A [redacted description]. She then said that she isn't saying it was in a "sexualised way". There were no timescales given or more information provided by The mother.

The mother said she doesn't personally think the father would do “anything sexual” but wanted me to know. I asked the mother why she didn’t share this information on Wednesday? She said she was going to tell me yesterday, but we didn't arrange a time to call. I asked why duty wasn't contacted with this being a safeguarding matter. The mother is a [redacted] and has a good understanding of safeguarding and reporting concerns straight away.

I discussed with the mother how A didn't express any worries to me on Tuesday when I visited him, school also haven't shared concerns during wishes and feelings sessions. The mother said A is "masking" and does this in school also. At home, she said that he will disclose about his dad.

The mother said that she is unsure whether A is “making these things up” but also said that this could be a result of people “not listening” to A. The mother feels that he is now coming out with this information because no one has acted upon the sleep issues.

The mother then said A is either lying to professionals, or her - she said he is now hitting himself at home.

The mother said that she has been made to feel she is manipulating situations from CAFCASS and school, but she isn't.”

From the notes at 620, it appears that the allegation arose by way of the mother complaining about the perception of her by the school: -

“• The mother said that if A is disclosing things to her, she is now going to raise them - she doesn't like the fact that school have saying that she is "putting info in mouth" - she feels this is crap.

• 20 minutes into the call, The mother told me that she wants to tell me something, but is taking it as a pinch of salt – A was speaking to her on wed night, about the soft bunny, asked where it came from? The mother said "a friend who came to see you in hospital". A said "she didn't see my private parts did she?" - The mother said "we don't show people private parts, don't let people touch them". A said "[redcated]and I don't like it". The mother asked "what do you mean? in the shower, washing?" A said "no mummy". [redacted]. The mother said she isn't saying it was in a "sexualised way".

• No timescales given or more information, she said she doesn't personally think the father would do anything sexual but wanted me to know.

• Asked why this wasn't shared on Wednesday? The mother said she was going to tell me yesterday we didn't arrange a time to call. I asked why duty wasn't called with this being a safeguarding concern.”

Thus, the information allegedly imparted to the mother by A did not cause her to make urgent contact with the local authority or the police. She describes not attributing significance to it. She was unsure whether A was making up the allegation. She said A is “either lying to professionals or her”. She did not suggest that the actions described were of a sexual nature. This may be contrasted with her apparent shock when describing the conversation with A within her Police statement. There is no description of A [redacted description of touching]. She is not described as being in shock or describing it as shocking.

In her Police statement, dated 5 February 2025 [671-673], her account is described thus:-

“Later that evening I picked A up at the CO-OP in [Redacted] at 6pm from THE FATHER. On the way home A said to me he hadn’t wanted to go with THE FATHER when school finished, A said he’d stayed in the classroom when the other children left and THE FATHER had to go in and get him. A said he’d told daddy he didn’t want to go but dad said he had to. A said he’d even tried running away once they’d got out of the classroom.

“When we got home, I did the evening/bedtime routine with A and had been settling him in bed when A very unexpectedly asked, 'WHERE DID SOFT BUNNY COME FROM?' Soft bunny is a Guess How Much I Love You bunny that has been with him since birth and has always been A’s main 'comfort' teddy. I explained to him that one of my friends visited us in hospital when he was born and brought him the bunny.

A said, 'SHE DIDN’T SEE MY PRIVATE PARTS DID SHE MUMMY?' I reassured him 'NO' and explained he had a nappy on and clothes. A said, 'COZ WE DON’T SHOW PEOPLE OUR PRIVATE PARTS DO WE?' I explained; no we don’t show people our private parts or let people touch them unless it’s a doctor or there is a need to…Having explained that we don’t let people see or touch our privates, I expected this to be the end of the conversation but A then said, [redacted description of contact]. I was shocked but did not really understand what he meant by that, so I asked A what he meant. A said, 'WHEN I'M IN THE SHOWER DADDY [redacted description]'. I said, 'DO YOU MEAN WHEN HE'S WASHING YOU?' A said 'NO'. I said 'SORRY I DON’T UNDERSTAND, EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT HAPPENS'.

A got out of his bed and started to act out a scenario. A showed me that he would be in the shower, he set the scene telling me where the shower was and where he stood, he demonstrated washing himself and then explained to me that 'DAD COMES IN AND GET IN THE SHOWER WITH ME. HE DOES THIS’ A then [redacted description]. A said, 'LIKE THIS'.

I asked again 'WAS IT WHEN HE WAS WASHING YOUR BODY? A said, 'NO, AND I DON’T LIKE IT AND THAT’S NOT KIND' which is A’s usual way of expressing when someone does something to him that he doesn’t like, he feels it is not kind. A also told me that daddy ‘[REDACTED].’

I sat on his bed and felt what I can only describe as being in a state of shock and utter disbelief of what he could be telling me. A also told me that 'SOMETIMES DAD GETS IN A BATH WITH ME, HE DOES IT THERE TOO' A acted it out and showed me they would sit at the same end of the bath together side by side and then did the same motion [redcated].

I said to him 'OKAY I UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME THAT, NO ONE SHOULD TOUCH YOU THERE OR MAKE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE. I got him back in to bed and resettled him, I gave him a cuddle and we said our goodnights. A was calm but unsettled as he lay in bed, seemingly restless until finally falling asleep at 20.45.”

I have also considered the account she gives in her statement, dated 6 August 2025 at paragraphs 52 – 57 [264 – 266].

There was a strategy discussion on this date lasting for 15 minutes [409 and 809]. It was agreed to initiate a joint section 47 enquiry with a plan for the police and children’s social care to visit A on Monday (16 December 2024).

SW contacted the school and requested that they “capture”, as the school put it [C462], A’s “voice” following information which had been provided by the mother.

It is not clear why it was thought appropriate having received information from the mother to ask the school to carry out this ill-defined task in advance of a visit on 16 December 2024.

The record [463; CPOMS entry at 476] is as follows: -

“Mrs Z[TAF Lead at school] met with A, A set us up a game of squares that mum had taught him.

Mrs Z asked A if he remembered learning about the NSPCC pants rule in school. A said he didn’t. Mrs Z reminded A of the materials used and used the terms- appropriate and inappropriate touch. Mrs Z asked A if he knew what this meant. A replied “YES, it’s if you don’t like it” Mrs Z agreed that inappropriate touch was when you didn’t like it, it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Mrs Za sked A if he knew where it was appropriate to touch “YES, HOLDING HANDS”. Mrs Z agreed and said “and maybe a hug to comfort someone if they were sad and it was okay with them”.

Mrs Z asked “Can you tell me where it would be inappropriate to touch?” A replied “[REDACTED]”. Mrs Z agreed and said “No one should touch others on their private parts, maybe babies when parents change their nappies”.

A said [redacted description]

Mrs Z asked A “Can you tell me more about this?”.

A responded “HE GETS IN THE SHOWER AND BATH WITH ME, HE GIVES ME NO CHOICE.”

Mrs Z asked A “Can you show me on your arm what this is like?”

A began to squeeze his arm and said “THIS IS WHAT HE DOES [redacted]”.

A then put his finger up and down his arm saying “[redacted]”

Mrs Zasked if it happens anywhere else.

A said “IT ONLY HAPPENS IN THE BATH OR SHOWER.”

Mrs Zasked, “Tell me is daddy helping you wash?”

A replied “NO, DADDY IS WASHING HIS HAIR WHILST HE TOUCHES ME. I DON’T LIKE IT, I ASK HIM TO STOP BUT HE DOESN’T, HES DOING IT ON PURPOSE AND I DON’T KNOW WHY.”

Mrs Z thanked A for talking to her and told him she would need to talk to Mrs Y about what we had talked about.

Mrs Z asked if A had spoken to anybody about this. A responded “I TOLD MY MUMMY ABOUT A WERK (sic.) AGO BUT I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT SHE SAID.”

This conversation appeared to last about 30 minutes [406]. The account is of the father showering or bathing with A. When A describes that his father is not helping him wash he does so by noting that his father is washing “his hair” (presumably his father’s hair) which may suggest the touching is incidental to the main task of washing hair. Further, “it” only happens in the bath or shower. He does not refer to whether the father says anything to him or explains why he is touching him, whether anything has changed over the period this has happened or even the period over which this had been happening. He appears confused by it.

There is no reference to A’s demeanour.

This is effectively the second account he has given of the allegation. It is unclear to me why Mrs Z was invited to elicit a further account at this stage given that the mother had given an account to SW.

On 16 December 2024, SW attended school with police officers (DC Roberts and DC Bird) to speak to A at about 14.00 [412, 622, 463, 476]. A left school at around 16.30.

The case note [412] prepared by SW is not a contemporaneous record of the questions and the answers provided by A. It is written as a summary addressed to A. I have not been provided (if they exist) with the records of the police officers who attended, one of whom I imagine would have been responsible for taking a careful note of the questions and answers (as compared to the day book entries with limited information at 815 (DC Bird) and 812 (DC Roberts)).

The case note records that reference was made to the toy bunny in the hope of instigating a conversation about the allegation. It did not do so.

There was then a conversation about routines at the father’s property. It is recorded as follows: -

“We asked about your time spent at daddy's house again, and your routine there. You told us that you have a bath and a shower when at daddy's. You also shared that daddy gets in the bath and shower with you. We asked what happens in the bath and shower and you said that he touches your private parts. I tried to establish if you meant by washing and you told me "no". You said that [redacted description]. Again I asked you to show me and you did a flicking movement with your fingers. You shared that you tell daddy to stop but he doesn't listen, because he doesn't stop. You couldn't remember what happens next. You said that when daddy is doing this, he is using his other hand to "scrub his belly". You said that he is facing you in the bath and daddy goes in the end of the bath where the plug is. You said that you feel "unhappy". A, you were very matter of fact when sharing this information and you were still very distracted on wanting to play the box game. Your body language barely changed, you did not seem distressed or anxious.

You wanted to whisper some information to me and Mrs Y in our ears. You were asked if daddy had ever hurt you in the bath and you told us "no". We also asked if anything like this had happened at bedtime and you also replied "no". However, you said that daddy always gets in the bath and you don't want him to. You can't remember what happens next but said that daddy dries you when you get out of the bath. You said that it "always happens" - also that it happened last weekend when you went to stay with him. Last weekend you had a bath and shower. You said that he "always fiddles, but ignores you".”

This appears to be the third account given by A. In this account, the focus is upon the bath with the shower an incidental suggestion. The reference to touching [redacted] is described as fiddling, indicated by a flicking movement with the fingers. There is no suggestion of [redacted description]. A refers to the father [redacted description]. In an earlier account he referred to the father washing his hair in the shower when the touching occurred and on this account he refers to his father scrubbing his stomach with one hand. A denied that he had ever been hurt by his father in the bath or that anything like this had happened at bedtime. In this account he is facing the father in the bath. Furthermore, this does not seem to have been an isolated pattern of touching but something that occurs regularly.

The father was subsequently arrested that day. In interview, the father said that [for example 902, line 5] A and him bath and shower together. He said that A washes himself but that he occasionally wipes his bottom, sometimes once a day. He recalled that the last time he washed A in the bath was when he had ring worm to make sure he was clean.

On 16 December 2024, the mother described A having a sore or itchy bottom; she “applied some cream” and indicated this was not the first time that A had mentioned having a sore bottom [413]. She states [267/60] that she asked if she could apply cream; A appeared guarded and refused.

On 17 December 2024, A’s participation in an ABE interview with the assistance of an intermediary was agreed by the mother [623-624].

On 7 January 2025 there was a strategy discussion [416]. The Police noted the history of both parents reporting each other to the Police. The mother had complained about the failure of the Police to treat her allegations as a criminal matter resulting in further reviews and further assessment that “there was no evidence of controlling and coercive behaviour from dad” [418]. They regarded this as “tit for tat”.

On 9 January 2025, A had the following conversations with Mrs Z[463]: -

“On sitting down

A “I DIDN'T SEE DADDY AT CHRISTMAS”

Mrs Z(sic) how he felt about that”.

A “NICE”.

Mrs Z “Can you tell me why you didn’t see daddy”.

A “MUMMY CHANGED THINGS”

Mrs Z “can you tell me how mummy changed things?

A “By magic”

A went on to tell Mrs Z about his Christmas gifts.

Mrs Z “Did you see grandad or any other family over Christmas?”

A “CAN I TELL YOU SOMETHING?”

Mrs Z “Of course”

A “MY GRANDAD HAD BAD BEHAVIOUR, HE SHOUTED AT MY MUMMY. I GOT SCARED AND RAN TO MY SQUISH MALLOW IN MY BEDROOM”

Mrs Z “I’m sorry to hear this A”

A “IT WENT ON FOR A LONG TIME”

Mrs Z “Can you tell me why grandad was shouting “

A “HE GOT THE WRONG DATE, MUMMY HADN’T INVITED HIM. MUMMY TOLD HIM TO GO. HES DONE IT SINCE MUMMY WAS LITTLE. HE’S HAD BAD BEHAVIOUR AND SHOUTED AT HER AND AUNTY X”

Mrs Z asked how A was feeling now, he said okay.”

There is a reference in notes at 496 which suggest that A was told that “the Police” said that he couldn’t see daddy. He is recorded as having said that he didn’t think they had made “the right decision: ‘I think I should see daddy in the day and stay at mummy’s at night. I just don’t want to sleep there but I’ll go in the day.’”

The notes contain the following recording: -

“Mum told me at Christmas that daddy had me for 9 days, that was some of mummy’s weekend. I don’t know how that made her feel.”

This is evidence that A is exposed, whether knowingly or not, to the areas of dispute between his parents when living with his mother.

On 18 December 2025, A was assessed by an intermediary. The report, dated 20 January 2025, was prepared by Charlotte Ambrose [796]. The assessment was carried out at the ABE Suite in the presence of DC Roberts. The intermediary notes that a detailed discussion took place between her and DC Roberts in advance of the ABE interview “where the strategies written in this report were discussed at length.” I have seen no other evidence of any planning for the interview. The recommendations begin at paragraph 5.1 [805]. Specific recommendations as to questioning of A are set out at 5.3: -

“5.3: Recommendations for ABE Interview Questioning

5.3.1

A demonstrated understanding of the concept of “before” and “after” (3.5.4), however the RI should be allowed to support with a post it note timeline if required.

5.3.2

Complex or unfamiliar vocabulary (for example; ‘incident’, ‘defendant’, ‘footage’, ‘account’, ‘recall’) should be avoided and simpler terms used, to ensure A’s full understanding of questions. It is also recommended that ambiguous language where more than one meaning is possible is avoided to ensure A’s understanding.

5.3.3

Tell A what you will be talking to his about e.g. ‘A, I’m going to ask you about x…’ before starting each topic.

5.3.4

To maintain A’s attention, adopting a consistent strategy of questioning that starts with saying his name, making eye contact and then asking the question is helpful.

5.3.5

To maintain A’s focus and attention, speak in a purposeful, clear voice.

5.3.6

Ensure that the past tense is used to ask questions about past events – this will help clarify the time and context for A.

5.3.7

Avoid general ‘when’ questions and use contextual, concrete anchors such as place, people and the activity taking place to establish time.

5.3.8

Based on the assessment, establish agreed vocabulary for genitals to be used in questioning as relevant to points to prove, i.e. ‘privates (for male genitals).

5.3.9

The RI will monitor verbal and non-verbal signs of stress throughout the interview and instigate breaks before the end of each question topic if necessary.”

I have not been referred to any evidence of planning undertaken by the interviewing officer.

The interview was conducted by DC Aston-Connell from 10.32 until 11.01 [632]. The video recording of the interview is contained within the bundle as a link to a media file [647]. The transcript of the interview is at page 742. The transcript does not contain any detailed timings nor does it refer to any physical gestures performed by A by way of answer to the questions. That is somewhat surprising.

It is clear that A was shown anatomical dolls prior to the commencement of the interview but there is no information regarding the preparation for the use of such dolls.

The section on truth or lies used a video which was difficult to understand. It would have been better if there had been greater clarity about that video, which I have not seen, and a more straightforward conversation about the importance of telling the truth in answer to the questions.

The interview begins by suggesting to A that he is going to be asked about “some stuff that’s happened to yourself (sic)”. In this way, the questioner was inserting the fact that A was expected to talk about something that had happened, which undermines the purpose of such an interview, namely, to give the child an opportunity to give an account and not merely to repeat an account which had previously been given.

One of the first observations he makes is that he wants “to see daddy in the day… but each time I go to his house just to stay there for a little bit, he just would keep my mummy sad.” It is clear that A has been placed in a difficult position: on the one hand that he wants to spend time with his father but on the other hand he believes that staying with his father upsets his mother. This is important context to the making and interpretation of the allegation.

When asked if anything makes him sad about staying with his father, A replies, “not seeing my dog with mummy.”

The interviewer begins to introduce the routine of staying at his father’s house by way of having a shower or a bath. A does not talk about the routine but immediately responds his father “messes with [redacted]”. In my judgment, this suggests that this issue is uppermost in his mind as he approached the interview, which is unsurprising given that he had been closely questioned about it in the period prior to Christmas.

A is asked to show the interviewer on the anatomical doll where his “[redacted]” are situated. He points to the [redacted] and then when asked to describe what his father was doing uses the term “fiddling”, a phrase which appears in an earlier case note. However, at about 8 minutes and 43 seconds, A appears to demonstrate the touching [redacted]. [redacted]. A specifically says that he asked his father to stop but he wouldn’t but at no stage does he say that his father said anything to him.

The interview does not refer to when this took place or the frequency other than A said for “the whole shower.”

The interviewer asked A what his father did and A responded in the transcript by using the term, “really fiddling” or “really fizzing. Moving it around.” At 9 minutes and 51 seconds approximately, A demonstrates a form of rapid touch by his father. It seemed to me, if correct, to be a form of play but one which left A confused.

A is asked about any other times he has been touched by his father and he responds by describing a time when he has been “getting dry”. This appears to refer to his father taking his towel and then touching his genital area. A clearly describes feeling uncomfortable about the action and the time over which it feels the father continues to do it (“Then he keeps on, then he keeps on, then he keeps on, then he keeps on, then he keeps on, then he keeps on, then he keeps on.”).

On a number of occasions, the police officer thanks A and A acknowledges the thanks. It appeared that A was being prompted with positive reinforcement for giving such an answer and I was troubled by the number of occasions upon which he was prompted with positive reinforcement when he had elaborated on the allegation. That type of behaviour may be apt to encourage a young child to continue to elaborate or even invent to receive such approbation.

A does not suggest that his father ever makes A touch him.

A is then asked about whether his father [redacted]. He describes the touching as “like messing around”.

He is asked about toileting and A says he has just started wiping his own bottom. He says that his father “just watches me”. Although he states that when his father comes into the toilet, he is “really unkind what I don’t like” but he is unable to remember anything other than it makes him feel sad.

A does not appear upset during the interview and during a break from minute 17 to minute 20, he starts singing to himself.

After the break, the officer invites A to demonstrate using the 2 anatomical dolls how the father was touching him. He then leads the conversation by making the suggestion that A “rubbed it a little bit”. In my judgment, that was a leading question and did not, from my perspective, reflect the fairly vigorous banging motion which A performed using the dolls.

A was asked why his father was rubbing or what he was touching, an unfortunate compound question. A stated that the rubbing by the father was to the father’s leg (“[h]is leg”) and “me, he was looking over there”. This does not appear to be an activity focused on A alone.

There is then a passage which I shall quote in full: -

“DC ASTON-CONNELL Thank you. This was in the shower, wasn't it?

A Mm mm.

DC ASTON-CONNELL Were you being washed? Yeah. Do you know what I mean by washing? Do you know when you're washing…

A Mm.

DC ASTON-CONNELL …do you do that yourself or does someone do it for you?

A I do it myself, but daddy isn't doing it for me. He's just messing around.”

The transcript uses the word “yeah” (contrary to his earlier account) but I think that the shake of A’s head may have been intended to reflect the answer being “no” but the reference he then uses to describe his father’s action; is “just messing around.”

Things appear to end when the family member enters the home.

[Redacted].

My overall impression was of a young boy placed in a position of conflict between his parents. His account is not consistent in important respects from the first account given to his mother. The ABE interview does not suggest any expected behaviours from an adult seeking to abuse sexually a minor child. The account is more suggestive of a parent lacking sensitivity around appropriate boundaries and an account which has been magnified over time to appear consistent with sexual abuse. It was at a hearing before me on 24 July 2025 that the mother confirmed that she was alleging sexual abuse [215]. In my judgment, the ABE interview provides limited support for that allegation.

A was medically examined (SARC) on 31 January 2025 at 13.00.

The Local Authority arranged for the father to send indirect contact on 7 February 2025 which was provided to A whilst at school [464]: -

“A appeared relaxed and said he was happy to receive the letter and wished to receive another. A was happy to write a reply. A drew a unicorn for dad (dad had asked A to draw something that made unicorns) and explained he was going to have a unicorn drawn on his bedroom wall at Daddy’s. A said he wanted to wish dad good luck with his parachute jump.”

SW, social worker, prepared a report for the Local Authority, dated 17 February 2025 [333]. This was a short update to the section 47 investigation. In the second and final paragraph, she notes that concerns have been “raised of parental alienation taking place from the mother towards the father and there has been evidence that the mother can be alienating in her responses, although she disputes this...”

The outcome of the section 47 investigation was that concerns were substantiated as A has provided what were described as consistent accounts of experiencing sexual harm from his father but it was felt that a further period of section 47 was not required as there were safeguards in place.

The mother reported that A’s behaviour declined following the medical and exchange of indirect contact, namely the return of bed wetting and nightmares. The father has no knowledge of A’s behaviour in this respect.

The mother reports indirect contact was against advice provided to her by RASASC (Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre); the Local Authority were advised however and indirect contact continued.

On 3 March 2025, the school report that A was upset coming into school. In the afternoon, he was “really disappointed that dad wasn’t the mystery reader. Complained of tummy ache. Brought bunny in as tired. Mum said he had had a nightmare. He was very affectionate and clingy to [redacted], mum said he was sad because he wanted her to be a mystery reader” [464].

Between 17 March 2025 and 24 March 2025, A was either clinging to the mother upon coming into school or upset at handover or tired (or a mixture of all three).

On 23 March 2025 [641 and 698], mother produced a recording of A. This recording lasts 43 minutes and 38 seconds. There is no transcript. I have not listened to it.

On 27 March 2025, A spoke to Mrs Z at school [465]: -

“Mrs Z asked A if he would like to do wishes and feelings.

A said “NO, BUT I DO WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING”.

A continued “CAN I WRITE LETTERS WITH DAD?”

Mrs Z said she can share A’s wishes with Jess.”

On 17 April 2025 [430] there was a further strategy discussion, which lasted 1 hour. The following was noted: -

“The mother has recently presented a file to SW of photos showing bruises and cuts A has sustained historically. When asked why she hadn't shown them to SW earlier or any professional at the time, she said she shared concerns to the court a few years ago. SW discussed A's lived experience if he is constantly having photos taken of injuries. The mother has also called SW saying A is talking about the allegation he has made against father again and she has recorded him.

SW has challenged The mother on some of the issues and has noticed a shift in behaviours. A is now coming to SW saying he wants to write and speak to his father. This is without being asked and immediately upon seeing SW.

The mother did not support A having contact with his [family member], but the court has now ordered that CSC can explore contact.”

On 23 April 2025, A completed a discussion about his wishes and feelings with Mrs Z after the Easter holiday [498]. Within this context, A stated that he would like to start writing to his father. In fact, he had already begun that process with the social worker and wondered when his letter was being sent to his father.

He said that he would “like daddy to come to school to see me because I really miss him.” He said that he liked to go to his father’s house for 2 nights and 3 ½ days. When A was told that he had previously indicated that he didn’t wish to sleep at his father’s home, A said that he had changed his mind and didn’t want to sleep.

On 24 April 2025, A appeared unsettled in coming into school [466]. He told Mrs Z that he had not slept well. The conversation continued as follows: -

“When returning back from the pirate ship, A asked if he could have a chat to Mrs Z.

Went to meeting room, had a minute or so of casual chat about litter, A then said ‘Hey Mrs Z, I’d like to change about going in the days and going in the nights. I don’t want to go in the day or night. I just want to see him a couple of times on a phone call and at school. I like seeing him sometimes.’

Mrs Z – ‘What has changed your thoughts, have you had a chat with a friend?’

A replied ‘I have had a chat with mummy, she reminded me that I didn’t have much fun at daddy’s so I have changed my mind’

Mrs Z – ‘Did mummy ask you about our chat yesterday

A – ‘Yes’”

The mother described acting as Mrs Z did by pointing out to A that what he had said to her was different to what he had said previously. I accept that the mother may have thought it appropriate to suggest that but I am not convinced it was an appropriate thing to do. Implicit in the comment, is the suggestion that a change of view should be justified. It runs a high risk of being a loaded or leading comment, which serves to influence the child.

A was subject to a child protection plan under the category of neglect on 24 April 2025 [240 and 459]. As SW noted [240], the concerns were two-fold: -

“3.

The reason for the Child Protection Plan is due to concerns that A has experienced significant emotional harm in the care of both his parents, the father and the mother. As a result of the parents’ acrimonious relationship, A was being exposed to inappropriate adult conversation and parental conflict. There was also concern pertaining to parental alienating behaviours from the mother towards the father and A experiencing instability by virtue of parents being unable to co-parent effectively and agree on care arrangements for him.

4.

There are also concerns that A has experienced possible sexual harm as he has alleged experiencing sexual touching from his father…”

The interview was conducted by DC Roberts from 11.12 to 11.48. The video recording of the interview is contained within the bundle as a link to a media file [697]. The transcript of the interview is at page 763.

It is said that this interview took place on 11 May 2025 at the request of the CPS. I do not know why and at such remove from the original ABE but the mother was requested to give her consent on 1 May 2025 [643].

I have not seen any evidence of planning for the ABE.

A spent much of the time in interview facing away from the camera.

There was no free narrative recall.

He said nothing of note other than the suggestion of a discussion between himself and the mother about the father on his bed in his bedroom. It appears to have been started by A and related to “bad things”. It was “really private.”

A was clearly disinclined to engage in questioning other than within the context of a game or writing down words on a piece of paper.

I am not satisfied that any weight can be attached to the interview.

In my judgment, it was a poorly conducted interview during which A was inappropriately pressed to answer questions which he was completely reluctant to do.

The parties did not address me in any detail as to the law.

The party asserting the allegation has the burden of proving the facts upon which it relies.

The standard of proof is the balance of probability.

I adopt the helpful summary of Baker, J (as he then was) in Re JS [2012] EWHC (Fam) 1370 at paras 38-45; in Devon County Council v EB & Ors (Minors) [2013] EWHC 968 (Fam) at paras 53-64; and A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children, by their Children's Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam).

In Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41, Peter Jackson, J (as he then was) summarised the relevant general principles with his customary brevity. The fundamental elements may be expressed thus (Footnote: ¹): -

When evaluating the witnesses, I have considered their demeanour in the witness box.  I have sought to take account of the contemporary documentation, the written evidence and the ordinary process of reasoning including consistency or inconsistency informing a holistic assessment of their evidence and ultimately of its reliability. Many honest witnesses may provide inconsistent evidence and the contrary may be true of a witness intent on deception. Ultimately, the Court must evaluate the evidence and establish its assessment of the reliability of the witness and the quality of the evidence given within the compass of the body of evidence put before it. Assessing the existence or not of past facts is a forensic autopsy with material from the past and the present guiding the search for truth. I have compared and contrasted a range of evidence intellectually. It would be unreal to seek to display that in the form of a linear judgment but what I have sought to do is to present the areas which I have found most instructive in reaching the conclusions that I have. What I will not do is to recite each and every facet of the evidence or submission made to me even if it has formed part of my journey to the conclusion reached. I will however chart my path to my conclusion necessary to serve the interests of justice.

In undertaking this task, I would gratefully adopt the analysis of Peter Jackson, LJ in Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371 at paragraphs 25-30: -

“25.

No judge would consider it proper to reach a conclusion about a witness’s credibility based solely on the way that he or she gives evidence, at least in any normal circumstances. The ordinary process of reasoning will draw the judge to consider a number of other matters, such as the consistency of the account with known facts, with previous accounts given by the witness, with other evidence, and with the overall probabilities. However, in a case where the facts are not likely to be primarily found in contemporaneous documents the assessment of credibility can quite properly include the impression made upon the court by the witness, with due allowance being made for the pressures that may arise from the process of giving evidence. Indeed in family cases, where the question is not only ‘what happened in the past?’ but also ‘what may happen in the future?’, a witness’s demeanour may offer important information to the court about what sort of a person the witness truly is, and consequently whether an account of past events or future intentions is likely to be reliable.

26.

I therefore respectfully agree with what Macur LJ said in Re M (Children)at [12], with emphasis on the word ‘solely’:

“It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.”

That was a case where the trial judge’s decision to refuse even supervised contact was based unduly on a father’s manner of giving evidence.

27.

The same approach was taken by this court in a family case: Re A [2020] EWCA Civ 1230, where a finding of unlawful killing by poisoning was based upon recollection of a very brief event years earlier. At [36], King LJ noted that in Kogan, the court had emphasised the need for a balanced approach to the significance of oral evidence regardless of jurisdiction and that, although it was a copyright dispute between former partners, the judgment had wider implications. She added:

“40.

I do not seek in any way to undermine the importance of oral evidence in family cases, or the long-held view that judges at first instance have a significant advantage over the judges on appeal in having seen and heard the witnesses give evidence and be subjected to cross-examination (Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] WL 477307, [1999] 2 FLR 763 at 784). As Baker J said in in Gloucestershire CC v RH and others at [42], it is essential that the judge forms a view as to the credibility of each of the witnesses, to which end oral evidence will be of great importance in enabling the court to discover what occurred, and in assessing the reliability of the witness.

41.

The court must, however, be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. What is important, as was highlighted in Kogan, is that the court assesses all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it and does not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.

43.

In the present case, the mother was giving evidence about an incident which had lasted only a few seconds seven years before, in circumstances where her recollection was taking place in the aftermath of unimaginably traumatic events. Those features alone would highlight the need for this critical evidence to be assessed in its proper place, alongside contemporaneous documentary evidence, and any evidence upon which undoubted, or probable, reliance could be placed.”

28.

Of course in the present case, the issue concerned an alleged course of conduct spread across years. I do not accept that the Judge should have been driven by the dicta in the cases cited by the Appellants to exclude the impressions created by the manner in which B and C gave their evidence. In family cases at least, that would not only be unrealistic but, as I have said, may deprive a judge of valuable insights. There will be cases where the manner in which evidence is given about such personal matters will properly assume prominence. As Munby LJ said in Re A (A Child) (No. 2) [2011] EWCA Civ. 12 said at [104] in a passage described by the Judge as of considerable assistance in the present case:

“Any judge who has had to conduct a fact-finding hearing such as this is likely to have had experience of a witness - as here a woman deposing to serious domestic violence and grave sexual abuse - whose evidence, although shot through with unreliability as to details, with gross exaggeration and even with lies, is nonetheless compelling and convincing as to the central core... Yet through all the lies, as experience teaches, one may nonetheless be left with a powerful conviction that on the essentials the witness is telling the truth, perhaps because of the way in which she gives her evidence, perhaps because of a number of small points which, although trivial in themselves, nonetheless suddenly illuminate the underlying realities.”

29.

Still further, demeanour is likely to be of real importance when the court is assessing the recorded interviews or live evidence of children. Here, it is not only entitled but expected to consider the child’s demeanour as part of the process of assessing credibility, and the accumulated experience of listening to children’s accounts sensitises the decision-maker to the many indicators of sound and unsound allegations.

30.

None of this will be news to specialist family judges and in future I would hope that in conventional family cases any submissions that unduly labour arguments based upon the dicta that I have been considering will receive appropriately short shrift.”

Hearsay evidence is admissible in civil proceedings but the Court must be astute to consider the weight to be attached to it.  In Westminster City Council v M, F and H [2017] EWHC 518 (Fam), Hayden, J put the matter in this way: -

“23.

Perhaps most importantly, sight must not be lost of the fact that these are public law care proceedings, where the guiding philosophy of the Court is investigative, non adversarial, sui generis.  Driven by its obligation to regard the welfare of the subject child as the paramount consideration, the Family Court will instinctively permit a board range of evidence in order ultimately to weigh and assess its quality and worth in the context of the evidence as a whole.

24.

A Local Authority faced with allegations of this kind is simply not going to be in a position to call as a witness every nurse, doctor or teacher who makes a note (usually recorded contemporaneously) in order to provide what Ms Bazley identifies as ‘the best quality of evidence on each individual point’.  The maternal being considered here, spans a number of years and is qualitatively of a different complexion to witness statements taken on key issues.  These are largely clinical and nursing notes which provide contextual material by which the central evidential conflicts may be resolved.

25.

The Local Authority must, ultimately, assess the manner in which it considers it can most efficiently, fairly and proportionately establish its case.  The weight to be given to records, which may be disputed by the parents, will depend, along with other factors, on the Court’s assessment of their credibility generally.  Here, the reliability of the hearsay material may be tested in many ways e.g. do similar issues arise in the records of a variety of unconnected individuals?  If so, that will plainly enhance their reliability.  Is it likely that a particular professional e.g. nurse or doctor would not merely have inaccurately recorded what a parent said but noted the exact opposite of what it is contended was said?  The reaction of witnesses (not just the parents), during the course of oral evidence, to recorded material which conflicts with their own account will also form a crucial aspect of this multifaceted evaluative exercise.  At the conclusion of this forensic process, evidence can emerge and frequently does, which readily complies with the qualitative criterion emphasised in Re A [(A Child) (Fact finding hearing: speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12].”

During his helpful summary of the law relating to the admissibility and weight to be accorded to hearsay evidence in children cases, Hayden, J made the following observation at paragraph 18: -

“The Court will always want to analyse the cogency and weight of hearsay evidence. Section 4 [Civil Evidence Act 1995] provides guidance as to the considerations relevant in weighing hearsay evidence. In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence. Regard may be had, in particular, to the following—

(a)

whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;

(b)

whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated;

(c)

whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;

(d)

whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;

(e)

whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose;

(f)

whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight."

I have borne those matters in mind when assessing the weight to be given to the hearsay evidence.

I have steadfastly avoided the assumption that because I did not believe a witness on one fact means that they must have lied on another.  I have sought to evaluate why they may have lied in accordance with the approach adopted in Re H-C [2016] AC 746.

As to the allegations of sexual abuse, I have reminded myself of the analysis of MacDonald, J in Re P (Sexual Abuse – Finding of Fact Hearing)[2019] EWFC 27 (Fam) and of Baker, LJ in Re JB (Child: Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46.

The current form of the ABE Guidance dates back to January 2022 (“Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures”).

I shall refer to some of the relevant paragraphs: -

In Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46 (adopted by Peter Jackson, LJ in Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 346 at paragraph 37), Baker, LJ gave important guidance in understanding and evaluating the ABE guidance: -

“11.

The importance of complying with the ABE guidance, which is directed at both criminal and family proceedings, has been reiterated by this Court in a series of cases including TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17, Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473, Re Y and F (Children) Sexual Abuse Allegations)[2019] EWCA Civ 206 and in the judgments of MacDonald J in AS v TH and others [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. It is unnecessary to repeat at any length the extensive comments set out in some of those judgments. For the purposes of this appeal, the following points are of particular relevance. (Save where indicated, the paragraphs cited are from the ABE guidance.)

(1)

The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts." (Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing), supra, paragraph 856).

(2)

Any initial questioning of the child prior to the interview should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place (paragraph 2.5).

(3)

In these circumstances, any early discussions with the witness should, as far as possible, adhere to the following guidelines.

(a)

Listen to the witness.

(b)

Do not stop a witness who is freely recalling significant events.

(c)

Where it is necessary to ask questions, they should, as far as possible in the circumstances, be open-ended or specific-closed rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple.

(d)

Ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action.

(e)

Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions asked of the witness).

(f)

Make a note of the demeanour of the witness and anything else that might be relevant to any subsequent formal interview or the wider investigation.

(g)

Fully record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the interview (paragraph 2.6, see also AS v TH, supra, paragraph 42).

(4)

For all witnesses, interviews should normally consist of the following four main phases: establishing rapport; initiating and supporting a free narrative account; questioning; and closure (paragraph 3.3).

(5)

The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the "ground rules" for the interview (paragraphs 3.12-14) and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account and establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies (paragraphs 3.18-19). The rapport phase must be part of the recorded interview, even if there is no suggestion that the child did not know the difference between truth and lies, because "it is, or may be, important for the court to know everything that was said between an interviewing officer and a child in any case" (per McFarlane LJ in Re E, supra, paragraph 38).

(6)

In the free narrative phase of the interview, the interviewer should "initiate an uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the witness by means of an open-ended invitation" (paragraph 3.24).

(7)

When asking questions following the free narrative phase, "interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced-choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort" (paragraph 3.44).

(8)

Drawings, pictures and other props may be used for different reasons – to assess a child's language or understanding, to keep the child calm and settled, to support the child's recall of events or to enable the child to give an account. Younger children with communication difficulties may be able to provide clearer accounts when props are used but interviewers need to be aware of the risks and pitfalls of using such props. They should be used with caution and "never combined with leading questions". Any props used should be preserved for production at court (paragraphs 3.103 to 3.112).

(9)

"The fact that the phased approach may not be appropriate for interviewing some witnesses with the most challenging communication skills (e.g. those only able to respond "yes" or "no" to a question) should not mean that the most vulnerable of witnesses are denied access to justice". It should not be "regarded as a checklist to be rigidly worked through. Flexibility is the key to successful interviewing. Nevertheless, the sound legal framework it provides should not be departed from by interviewers unless they have discussed and agreed the reasons for doing so with their senior managers or an interview advisor" (paragraph 3.2).

(10)

Underpinning the guidance is a recognition "that the interviewer has to keep an open mind and that the object of the exercise is not simply to get the child to repeat on camera what she has said earlier to somebody else" (per Sir Nicholas Wall P in TW v A City Council, supra, at paragraph 53).”

Peter Jackson, LJ in Re S (supra) noted that it would have assisted the trial judge if he had identified and focused on the chapters of time covered by the evidence, which might conveniently have been arranged under the headings: the background, the first accounts, the ABE process and subsequent statements. I have endeavoured to have regard to that approach within this judgment. The careful preparation and consideration of the Journey to ABE document [G73] is intended to achieve that objective although I have limited evidence as to events after the first ABE interview (notably a video taken by the mother was not transcribed by the time of the final hearing and no party suggested that it was of such probative value as to require one).

In Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993, Cobb, LJ made the following important observations at paragraphs 65 – 66: -

“65.

In a case in which there are multiple allegations, a Judge must always guard against the temptation to approach the evidence on the basis that something must have happened; the temptation in this case must have been all the greater given the reports of H’s sexually disinhibited behaviour and language, particularly once in foster care. In this case, the Judge had rightly been invited by counsel to consider the comments of Lord Hewart CJ in Bailey [1924] 2 KB 300 at 305, regarding the judicial approach required in cases in which the court is faced with determining a very large number of allegations: “The risk, the danger, the logical fallacy is indeed quite manifest to those who are in the habit of thinking about such matters. It is so easy to derive from a series of unsatisfactory accusations, if there are enough of them, an accusation which at least appears satisfactory. It is so easy to collect from a mass of ingredients, not one of which is sufficient, a totality which will appear to contain what is missing. That of course is only another way of saying that when a person is dealing with a considerable mass of facts, in particular if those facts are of such a nature as to invite reprobation, nothing is easier than confusion of mind; and, therefore, if such charges are to be brought in a mass, it becomes essential that the method upon which guilt is to be ascertained should be stated with punctilious exactness” (Emphasis by underlining added).

The Judge was further taken to Macdonald J’s comments in Re P [2019] EWFC 27 at [272] where he said (having quoted the extract from Bailey above):

“The totalising approach must be avoided if the court is to steer safely clear of capitulating to suspicion and the beguiling adage that there is ‘no smoke without fire’” (Emphasis by underlining added).

The judicial advice from Bailey and Re P set out above was particularly apt to this case.

66.

Notwithstanding the conscientious efforts of this judge in preparing his detailed judgment, this is a case in which the crucial analysis on the key facts would I suggest have been easier for him to undertake, and would altogether have been more coherent in its organisation and presentation, if he had adopted the approach advocated by Peter Jackson LJ in Re S [2023] EWCA Civ 346 at [33]; that is to say he could or should have identified and focussed on the “chapters of time” covered by the evidence, rather than structuring the judgment by reference to the sequence of witnesses and the individual allegations in isolation from each other. On the facts of this case, these ‘chapters’ might conveniently have been arranged under headings including: July 2023 (H’s report of being smacked); the first account of sexual abuse (December 2023: father); the second account of sexual abuse (January 2024: mother); other accounts of physical and sexual abuse (January – March 2024); the first ABE interview (5 April 2024); the allegations against CH on 21 April 2024; the second ABE interview. The Judge could then have concentrated on the first point in time at which H had ever given an account of alleged sexual abuse, the precise circumstances in which the account or accounts arose, whether and if so how they fitted into a context of lies, and how those were treated by those to whom they were made (Re P (Sexual Abuse – Finding of Fact hearing) [2019] EWFC 27). There was, thus, much force in Ground 1 of this appeal.”

In Re P (supra), MacDonald, J made the following observations about the impact of non-compliance with the ABE Guidelines: -

“601.

It is important to emphasise that in evaluating the extent to which those charged with, or finding themselves receiving allegations from children, have complied with these principles the court does not expect perfection and it would be unrealistic to do so.  As Mr Vater and Mr Watson remind the court, complete adherence to ‘guidelines’ does not mean that an allegation is true; wholesale failure to adhere to ‘guidelines’ does not mean that an allegation is false.  In the paper provided to the court by Mr Bagchi and Ms Bains, Children’s Suggestibility Research: Things to know before interviewing a child (Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 25 (2015) 3-12) Ceci and his co-authors make clear that it is important not to discount a child’s testimony merely because that child has been exposed to suggestive questioning. The Court must consider a whole range of factors. 

602.

 As I made clear in Re AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse), failures by professionals in the investigation of allegations of abuse, and the fact that those failures must be taken into consideration when considering the weight that can be attached to the various strands of evidence, does not of itself preclude the possibility that those allegations are true.  There will, in any system that relies on human agency, inevitably be occasions on which there are omissions and errors in the application of good practice.  As noted by Baker LJ in Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206the ABE Guidance is extremely detailed and often very challenging for police officers and social workers to follow.  Within this context, it is thus important to note that, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child's evidence) at [40] that:

“There is no question of this evidence being inadmissible for failure to comply with the ABE guidelines, and that has not been suggested in argument for either parent. In family case evidence of this kind falls to be assessed, however unsatisfactory its origin. To hold otherwise would be to invest the guidelines with the status of the law of evidence and it would invite the question: which failures have the consequence of inadmissibility? Clearly some failures to follow the guidelines will reduce, but by no means eliminate, the value of the evidence. Others may reduce the value almost to vanishing point.”

603.

 However, the standard expected by the court remains a high one.  As Ms Morgan and Ms Gallacher recognised in their closing submissions, whilst there can be a sense sometimes that lawyers are only too keen to examine the detail of the breach of this rule or that, and that it is in the Court arena that those breaches of guidance, rules and good practice fall to be examined, it is outside the court arena that they have their effect for good if followed and the reverse if not. Within this context, as Baker J (as he then was) noted in Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300 (and recently reiterated in Re SR (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2738):

“I have sympathy for officers and social workers entrusted with the difficult task of speaking to children about allegations of this sort. The ABE Guidance is detailed and complex. But those details and complexities are there for a reason. Experience has demonstrated that very great care is required when interviewing children about allegations of abuse. The Guidance has been formulated and refined over the years by those with particular expertise in the field, including specialists with a deep understanding of how children perceive, recall and articulate their experiences. It would be unrealistic to expect perfection in any investigation. But unless the courts require a high standard, miscarriages of justice will occur and the courts will reach unfair and wrong decisions with profound consequences for children and families.”

604.

 The relevant question for the court is whether any omissions or errors made are forensically significant. As Baker LJ further noted in Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) “the judge (or the jury in criminal cases) has to assess the extent to which those failures undermine the reliability of the evidence”. Do the omissions or errors in good practice undermine the credibility of what is being said?  Did they act, inadvertently or deliberately, to put words into the child’s mouth by suggesting the answer to a given question? Did they inadvertently or deliberately encourage the child to exaggerate for reward? Did they cause the recorded account to be inaccurate or unreliable?  Did they act to assume an outcome?  Did they fail to take account of the needs of the child such as to make what the child has said unreliable?  This is not an exhaustive list.”

In other words, “[s]ignificant departures from the Guidance are likely to result in reduced, and in extreme cases no, weight being attached to the interview. It is for the judge to consider the interviews, and the extent to which they comply with or depart from the Guidance, in the context of all the other evidence” (Re C (A Child) (Fact-Finding) [2022] EWCA Civ 584 per Baker, LJ at paragraph 23).

MacDonald, J provided a comprehensive analysis of the statutory and other guidance of which all social workers and other professionals working with children should be aware: AS v TH (False Allegations of Sexual Abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) at paragraphs 33 to 52; Re P (supra) at paragraphs 570 to 600. In my judgment, his masterful analysis is required reading and the key messages remain vital: -

“600.

Having regard to the matters set out in this section of the judgment, in evaluating the weight that can be attached to the allegations made by [named children] [...] and in summary, the court must consider the extent to which the following principles have been adhered to:

i)

Having regard to research into the manner in which a child registers, processes and recalls experiences from memory and the factors that may influence that recollection, and to long experience that emphasises the high level of caution that needs to be applied if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised, very great care must be taken by adults when speaking to children who have made allegations of sexual abuse, and when analysing and assessing the weight to be given to statements by those children.

ii)

Adults speaking to children who have made allegations of sexual abuse must always be careful to keep an open mind with respect to the allegations made and to guard against the development of bias or preconceived ideas. The child should be listened to and taken seriously whilst care is taken not to prejudge the issue.

iii)

Adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should not stop free recall of events.

iv)

Adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action.

v)

Where it is necessary to ask questions, adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should, as far as possible in the circumstances, ask only open-ended or specific closed questions, rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple questions.

vi)

Any initial questioning by adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged (where and when the alleged incident took place and who was involved or otherwise present). A more detailed account should not be pursued and should be left to the ABE interview.

vii)

As soon as possible thereafter the adult must make a comprehensive record of the conversation, which record should detail (a) the timing, setting and people present, (b) a full note of what the child said in the words used by the child (avoiding summaries of the account in the interests of neatness or comprehensibility and recordings of the adult’s interpretation of the account), (c) a full note of the actual questions asked (if any) and (d) what was said by anybody else present.  The record should also record the demeanour of the child and anything else that might be relevant.

viii)

The adult should continue to record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the ABE interview.”

SW2 has been A’s allocated social worker since 14 May 2025 following the decision to implement a child protection plan on 24 April 2025.

Her central thesis is that A “is a little boy directly in the middle of parental conflict and he is experiencing instability by virtue of parents being unable to co-parent effectively and agree on care arrangements for him” [paragraph 3].

She opines that A is “guarded and worried about the number of professionals involved in his life. He is clearly continuing to be confused regarding his views about seeing his dad and has at times during the review period said he wants to see him but has also talked about being worried about this and using adult like language like expressing concern about dad's behaviour not changing” [paragraph 6].

The father is described as becoming fixated with events over the preceding 3 years. He is “highly focused on historical issues and maintains extensive records of interactions and missed contact. He will regularly during visits or discussions with all professionals use historic examples pertaining to his view that there has been alienating behaviours which is unhelpful to progressing plans and moving forward conversation and his thought process…”

The father presents with “rigid thinking and difficulty adapting to changes in plans or court orders.” There were some glimmers of improvement in his communication and he has sought therapeutic support to assist him and an assessment for Autism/ ADHD. SW2 offers the following example of the father’s behaviour: -

“25.

His engagement in discussions is often marked by a fixed perspective, which has presented challenges in progressing discussions and encouraging consideration of alternative viewpoints. An example I will give is that during the most recent core group when trying to tell the father about the positive time that A had on holiday, in me mentioning that he had enjoyed spending time with the young adults at the kids club on holiday, the father was adamant that this was in direct conflict with the information provided by the mother that A dislikes engaging with and meeting new

people. I disagreed with the father that this for me, is a completely different circumstance of A enjoying spending time with young adults who are there to play with him and make him laugh however I was completely unable to progress The father’s thinking or for him to move his own thoughts about this. I am regularly in meetings left as the chair feeling unable to raise things without having to defend things and it makes the progress of the meeting extremely difficult.

26.

This rigidity has contributed to professional concerns regarding the father’s capacity to emotionally manage and adapt to the eventual outcome of the court proceedings.”

Having listened to the father give oral evidence, I agree with SW2’s assessment that he has lacked insight into the needs of his son. At paragraph 29, she says this: -

“I find that the father regularly lacks the insight to truly understand the needs of A. I feel that over time of working with the family, there is evidence of the father being unable to consider A’s needs and I think that often when the father believes he is considering A’s needs he is actually thinking about how A can fulfil and meet his own needs. I do not believe this to be malicious or calculated but feel that he is unable to see past his own current pain and he requires significant input to unpick this, however, I fear that his emotional presentation limits his capacity to do this. The example that I will give is, during a session between the father and [the family intervention worker] on 7th July 2025, it states “Your Dad continues to want to see you, A. He is worried about your bond. He feels that a lot of reparation work needs to take place when he is able to see you again. He feels he is going to have to be with you 24/7, co-sleep, do everything together in order to repair your bond.”

SW2 comments that the father’s difficulty with flexibility and change has led to frequent misunderstandings with blame directed at the mother.

In my judgment, there is a risk of emotional harm to A attributable to a continuation of this pattern of behaviour. This requires the court to balance the importance of promoting a relationship between A and his father whilst being careful to ensure that the process does not undermine his emotional security and does not prolong unhealthy and inappropriate patterns of parenting. It remains to be seen the extent to which the father will be able to adjust his approach and to rebuild his relationship with A. In my judgment, that is why the support of the local authority is critical in establishing a reintroduction and ensuring that the development of contact proceeds consistently with and is underpinned by an effective parenting relationship between the parties. I am hopeful that the end of this litigation will lift some of the burden on both parties and enable them to seek support and develop better strategies as parents. In the event that the local authority regard psychological assessment of the parents or of the family as essential to build insight then that may be commissioned outside of proceedings. I do not regard it as a necessary step to establish a roadmap of contact.

The mother can, at times, be abrupt and brief in her communication style. She also needs support to manage the intensity of her response to A’s behaviour.

SW2 noted that indirect contact through letters was ongoing but at times A has expressed a reluctance to respond. Her concern is that A is a child who has for a significant proportion of his life had his wishes and feelings formally sought by different professionals and has become hypervigilant and mistrusting of the intention of adults.

She commends the father for the care with which he prepares letters to A and items which form part of a package provided to him. Equally, she has found the mother to manage issues around contact, when SW2 was present, “brilliantly”. She describes that the mother has been thoughtful of the father during many conversations.

SW2 has not herself detected elements of alienating behaviour by the mother despite being alerted to the concerns. She opines that the mother’s responses to the allegation were “balanced and thoughtful about A” [paragraph 34].

It appears from the evidence of Ms Emery that when she raised the contact plan with her that SW2 agreed with the proposals and with the role it was proposed she and the local authority would take in supporting it.

In my judgment, Ms Emery adopted a careful, balanced and appropriate position as A’s Guardian. Between the filing of her report and the production of her plan of contact, she reflected on the observations of the court and altered her opinion. Within her oral evidence, she maintained that the vulnerabilities in the situation might in other circumstances justify further review and the potential for a psychological assessment. However, the role of the local authority under the child protection plan and potentially under a family assistance order for a period of 12 months would provide sufficient support to establish a gradual improvement to the relationship between A and his father. She recognised that the court was keen to conclude proceedings at final hearing and sought to formulate a plan which would achieve that objective without compromising A’s welfare interests. In my judgment, she liaised with SW2, recognising that the local authority had been the lead agency for a significant period, and produced a plan which was mutually supported.

She observed on meeting A that he is an intelligent little boy capable of using a wide vocabulary in normal conversation.

At paragraph 9, she says this about A’s comments about his father: -

“…When meeting with A in August he again spoke positively about the indirect contact from his father and told me ‘I do miss him’. A then added 'but has he stopped his anger? He hurt me last time I went there'. I explored this with A and asked him what he meant by this - he wouldn't say any more and continued to talk about the Lego we were building before shouting the mother to come back. When the mother came back into the room, he found a piece of train track and told me that this was a piece of train track his Dad had made for him and he carved it out of wood. The mother was encouraging of this and said how lovely that he has his Dad's train track.”

She describes the items prepared by the father for contact as “incredibly thoughtful and tailored to A.” The irony of this case is that the parents individually have much to offer A but that is eclipsed by their inability to manage the parenting relationship ultimately to A’s detriment.

A has been noted to become dysregulated around the provision of such contact. This may be a reaction to him being uncomfortable, anxious or overstimulated.

Similarly to SW2, she observes that the father has “appeared to be entirely consumed by the proceedings and fixated on his negative feelings towards the mother.” In my judgment, she is evidently correct in that assertion as the father accepted or demonstrated during his oral evidence. At paragraph 13, she says this: -

“Whilst it is entirely understandable that the father is struggling with the current situation, I was concerned that at times the father seemed to lose sight of A with him focusing heavily on past parental conflict, what he deemed to be ‘fair’ for parents and spoke of the proceedings in terms of winning and losing. He spent a lot of time talking about child maintenance and financial issues, appearing consumed by his feelings towards The mother and his anxiety and frustration. When asking the father what he feels should happen following the court’s judgment, the father is of the view that A should move to live with him and only have indirect contact with the mother initially, before introducing supervised contact. The father’s view is that if this was not possible, A would be better off in foster care than with the mother. Whilst the father would ideally want to work towards a shared care arrangement, he told me he believes this is impossible and he does not believe he can coparent with the mother, describing her as a narcissist, a bully and a control freak.”

Whilst the father did not maintain that position within his oral evidence, it is evident that his feelings run deep. A corrosive component of this prolonged litigation is the influence it has borne upon the attitude and approach of the parents but principally the father. Compromise and solution have been supplanted by litigation. The making of the allegation of sexual abuse has served to heighten his anxieties about the behaviour of the mother. The Guardian raises a concern that the father may struggle to “move on from the issues that currently consume him” in the absence of psychological support to assist him and to view matters from “A’s perspective rather than his own” [paragraph 14].

In my judgment, the father did demonstrate some development of insight within his oral evidence but I remain unclear as to the extent to which he can adjust his attitude and approach in light of this judgment. If matters are to proceed as he would wish then he must change and endeavour to move on from the pain of the past. It is his responsibility as a parent to do so. If he does not do so then the arrangements will remain limited and confined.

Ms Emery has not detected patterns of alienating behaviour by the mother. She observes that ultimately this is a matter for the court, but her observations are set out at paragraph 15: -

“In contrast, the mother has been seen to be entirely focused on A and his needs during discussions. She has not been seen to speak negatively about the father at any time and has in my view maintained a balanced view in respect of him. She has shown emotion when considering what may have happened to A in his father’s care, and seems to struggle to comprehend this, but clearly sees the importance of the father in A’s life. Whilst some professionals have been concerned about the mother’s behaviour in these proceedings, from my observations her approach towards A is nurturing, gentle, child focused and seemingly protective.”

I accept her opinion as to that whilst observing that the mother can be criticised for aspects of her behaviour.

In her opinion, “A has spent a large proportion of his life at the centre of intense conflict and disputes, and this alone, even without the presence of sexual harm psychological harm via alienating behaviours, will have caused him emotional harm” [paragraph 19].

In one sense, the allegation of sexual abuse has consumed professional attention leaving the underlying problems unaddressed. Within her contact plan and oral evidence, she specifically referred to her reflecting upon that observation in devising the contact plan. When preparing her written report, she was concerned that there would need to be a psychological assessment of the family as a whole to assist the parents to move past their difficulties and co-parent effectively. This was proposed to avoid the risk of repeat proceedings, continued conflict and emotional harm. Furthermore, she reflected that A had not seen his father since December 2024 and it is unknown what his presentation would be following a reintroduction of contact.

In my judgment, a prolongation of litigation is not likely to assist A or his parents. They need a determination as to the allegation of sexual abuse and a roadmap for the future. They need professional support to ensure the reintroduction and development of contact moves at a pace which is consistent with A’s welfare and not driven by competing adult perspectives. A needs respite from the centre of the maelstrom. He needs a break from being asked questions he no longer wishes to answer. He needs to see his parents more relaxed and capable of providing secure care for him. He needs to enjoy being a child and all of the innumerable qualities his parents offer without the conflict which he has been exposed to.

In devising the road map, there is an inescapable truth: the parents must buy into it because it will not succeed without them. It is their responsibility to make it succeed with support. There is no route for them in delegating the exercise of Parental Responsibility to the Court as A grows.

Prior to the final hearing, the Guardian filed a plan of contact in the event that allegations of sexual abuse were not made [879]. I have considered it and it was reflected in the final submissions and draft orders prepared by all parties.

I found the mother to be a generally credible witness. In some ways, she appeared to lack insight into the impact of some of her behaviour on A. Within her written evidence, she gave what might appear as an unduly positive assessment of her role as a parent in the dysfunction which surrounded A. I did not evaluate her as a parent determined to exclude or diminish the father’s role within A’s life. Both Ms Emery and SW2 opined that they had not observed evidence to suggest that she had sought to undermine the father’s relationship with A.

Having listened to her assessment of her role in the dysfunction as I have described, in my judgment, she needs to reflect upon her actions and realise that she communicates a great deal to A about her feelings towards the father and A’s relationship with him. She will need to offer A reassurance and provide constructive suggestions for the development of A’s relationship with his father. She will need to respect his role and not regard the orders which I intend to make as giving her the upper hand. She will need to soften her communication.

I am satisfied that she is capable of promoting the relationship and contribute positively to the rehabilitation of that relationship.

The mother was cross-examined about the reasons for A experiencing viruses and coughs at school [73]. Whilst many children suffer similar conditions, in my judgment, it is unrealistic to suggest that a significantly disrupted sleep routine alongside disparate patterns of toilet training would be anything other than a significant contributory factor.

However, I was troubled by some of her evidence. I have discussed within the body of the judgment some of the examples by which I am satisfied she has added to the difficulties for A. I do not intend to repeat them here.

I also generally found the father to be a credible witness. As he gave evidence, gradually, he appeared to evidence a level of insight into his behaviour. He is a father who loves A and is committed to him. That is a quality he shares with the mother. However, he has not demonstrated flexibility of thought or an ability to resolve matters sensibly. His frustration and anxiety have contributed to a resistance to work collaboratively with the mother and professionals at times. He has been a frustrating parent to work with. The risk is that away from the witness box, he may revert to a fixed and hostile view of the mother which will sour any growth in his relationship with his son. He must seek to neutralise or ignore the toxicity of reactions of sympathetic friends or family around him. There is no good reason why he should not play a full part in A’s life in the future. That must be the aim of the court, the local authority and both parents. However, that aim will not be achieved if the patterns of behaviour which occurred after June 2023 are allowed to recur. When the father was asked how he had contributed to the dysfunction around A and what impact it had had upon his son, he gave a thoughtful and seemingly genuine explanation, which offered evidence that he is capable of being a good parent outside of the dispute or the battle. In the midst of dispute, he is unreasonable, fixated and incapable of recognising the impact upon his son.

On 16 December 2024, the father suggested in his police interview that he would rather A be placed “in social care than with her” [909]. In October 2025, he maintained that opinion when speaking to the Guardian [838/13]. He regarded the shared care arrangement, as he now proposes, as impossible and said that he did not believe he could co-parent with the mother, describing her “as a narcissist, a bully and a control freak”. He agreed that he had ignored messages at times although he sought to suggest they were at late night or part of the conversation which he saw was “going nowhere.” That illustrates the depth of the difficulty in charting a course to permit A to have a relationship with both of his parents.

Against that assertion, he accepted the need to address the problems in a way which enables the parents to a communicate with each other. My concern is that the depth of his hostility makes his protestations less credible. In his oral evidence, the father stated that he maintained that the mother had been responsible for alienating behaviours and he would struggle to get past that. He continued to associate himself with the description of her as a narcissist, a bully and a control freak.

The father reported the mother to professional standards on 3 occasions (October 2023, April 2024 and December 2024). In my judgment, there was no basis to do so beyond desperation. The father said he did not want her to lose her job but obtain “a slap on the wrist”; he conceded that he should not have done that on the first occasion although he was unable to explain why he repeated the exercise on 2 further occasions.

I refer in passing to the images on 235 - 239 posted by the father and family member which suggest the narrative of “parental alienation” permeated the father’s life in 2024.

One of the consequences of the situation is that the father struggled to manage A’s sleeping pattern for a substantial proportion of 2024. To some extent, both parents experienced A becoming angry and demonstrating physical aggression and dysregulation. The parenting gap which emerged between the parents provided fertile soil for this behaviour. The father accepted that A did become angry and dysregulated. He accepted that there were times when he became stern and would raise his voice, which A may have interpreted as anger. He acknowledged that A would have overheard shouting between the parents in April 2024.

The father’s counsel cross-examined the mother on the basis that the father had never accepted smacking A. In his police interview, the father stated that he smacked A once on the bottom and seemingly on the bottom of the foot [897, line 25 and 27].

The single assessment by SW, dated 23 April 2025 [450] recorded the following: -

“The father denied smacking A in a harmful way but did admit to "clipping" him on the foot twice in an attempt to de-escalate his behaviour. As discussed, the father has expressed that A "gets into rages" and hits out at everyone and everything around him. He also admitted to picking up A on occasions and putting him on the bed, he says in attempt to de-escalate and keep everyone safe. The father shared that he has now realised this doesn't work and now only raises his voice.”

The father accepted in his oral evidence that there were 3 times when he smacked A. This was not part of any conventional regime of discipline nor was it effective at managing A’s dysregulation. It was a symptom of the father’s anger and frustration in my judgment. In my judgment, the father minimised his account. The purpose of smacking A was to inflict pain. It was not more complicated than that. The father accepted on each occasion he suffered a momentary loss of control surrounding the issues of sleep. It was an unusual and futile endeavour illustrating the depth of his struggle to manage A’s behaviour alongside persistent sleep issues, the latter of which were not a feature of A’s life when he stayed with the mother.

The father accepted that after a pause in overnight contact, there was an improvement in A’s presentation (letter from the school, dated 4 July 2024 [380]). Unfortunately, when the overnight contact resumed on the weekend of 8 June 2024, the school complained that the father had not accepted professional advice about implementing a sleep routine. The father resorted to the use of a car to get A to sleep. Rather than abide by the simple plan that in the event A did not sleep at home then he would be taken back to his mother, the father appeared to have engaged in negotiation with A, late at night, whereby if A fell asleep in the car he would return to his father’s home. There was no need to finesse a simple arrangement. A needed clarity and consistency [287].

The mother’s allegation is that on various occasions, before 11 December 2024, during or after bathing/showering at the father’s home, the father has touched A on and around his [redacted] when A has been unclothed. This touching has been sexually motivated and inappropriate [215].

I do not find this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities, the mother bearing the burden of proof.

As I have traced within this judgment, A gave different accounts on a number of occasions. The unnecessary repetition of accounts was inappropriate. It appears that he gave an initial account to the mother on 11 December 2024. For reasons which are unexplained, the school was asked to complete further work (NSPCC Pants) with him resulting in a further account to the school. He was then seen as part of a joint investigation on 16 December 2024. There is no note by the social worker attending nor the police officers as to the questions, the answers or his demeanour. The fourth account is that given at ABE interview on 18 January 2025, some considerable time since the initial allegation was made to the mother.

There is no documentary evidence regarding planning for the ABE interview on 18 January 2025 (save for the obtaining of an intermediary report). The video used to conduct an exercise in truth and lies has not been disclosed although part of it is visible and audible within a subsequent ABE interview on 11 May 2025.

Neither party wished A to give oral evidence so the court must confine itself to weighing the ABE evidence in the context of the development of the allegation.

The description given by the mother of A demonstrating his father [redacted] is not apparent from the ABE interview. Anatomical dolls are used and the actions appear to convey a vigorous tapping motion. There is a grossly leading question in which the interviewing officer suggests that A was rubbing the area when the physical demonstration is not consistent with that description.

There is no suggestion that any form of sexual touching has occurred outside the context of A and his father having a bath or shower together. Despite them sleeping together from time to time, there is no suggestion that any inappropriate conduct took place during those periods.

There is no evidence that A saw his father masturbating or having an erect penis. Ms Whelan suggested the reference to A describing his father scrubbing his stomach area could be consistent with masturbation but it is equally consistent with the father washing his body in the bath. It is less apparent why a lateral motion across the stomach would be consistent with the motion expected in masturbating his penis.

His description of what occurred was not set within any form of chronology although it is suggested to have been ongoing for an undefined period. The allegations related to the father’s conduct within the shower and the bath. The ABE interview barely references the shower; it is largely confined to actions in having and getting out of the bath. There is no separation between individual incidents. There is simply an amalgam of something that occurred.

A’s account within ABE was largely devoid of free narrative recall. Almost immediately after introductory questions, he alleged that his father had touched his “[redcated]”. This had the air of a witness primed to say something.

During the first ABE interview, A was given positive approbation when he provided an account. This had the tendency, in my judgment, to reveal the wish for him to repeat allegations which had been made previously rather than to provide an environment to give an account.

The use of anatomical dolls within the first ABE interview was a matter of concern. It is not clear how the planning for the interview resulted in the dolls being introduced in the way they were. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging a younger child to give an account in their own words and using a doll to help them convey what they may struggle to do in words. Equally, the element of playing with a doll may also affect the accuracy of the account. I am unable to understand the rationale for such use in this case in the absence of evidence of that planning.

The 2^nd ABE interview on 11 May 2025 was a meritless endeavour. It is entirely unclear what the CPS hoped to achieve in interviewing A so long after the events in question. A sat with his back largely towards the camera so that his face was often obscured. In my judgment, it was obvious that he did not want to discuss his wishes and feelings or give an account (again) of the incident. At times he said that what he had told the officer was not true. The fact that the interview proceeded for such a length of time is inexplicable. It certainly did not reveal any account of abuse and insofar as it purported to suggest that the mother may have influenced A, was of no evidential weight.

The initial allegation was made to the mother on 11 December 2024. The first recorded account is that of SW, social worker, during a conversation with the mother on 13 December 2024. I accept that the mother may well have been shocked to hear what was being said. I do not treat her by the standards of a [redacted] of nearly 20 years’ experience. I find it almost incomprehensible that she heard what A is alleged to have told her and did nothing with that information until after 20 minutes with SW by telephone on 13 December 2025. However, if she was the architect of a false allegation then she had every reason to contact SW on the evening of 11 December 2025 or the following day. Waiting to communicate with SW does not suggest that this was part of any conscious plan of the mother.

Her first instinct upon listening to A was to doubt that this was an allegation of sexual abuse. I accept that she did not want to believe it to be true.

The reality is that the mother’s influence on A has not, in my judgment, been part of an orchestrated plan to diminish and exclude the father as suggested by Mr Murray. However, in my judgment, she has by her actions encouraged A to feel aligned with her and has permitted him to be aware of information which would tend to increase the extent of his alignment and consequent opposition to the father. However, the father has contributed significantly to the creation of a larger problem. He has been difficult and resistant to professional advice and at times unwilling to be flexible and solution focused. His frustrations have caused him to lose a sense of proportion and focus upon the impact on his son of the dispute. A has seen the impact of his failings. Such was his anger and frustration, that he resorted to the infliction of physical pain in an attempt to address A’s anger.

The key point is that the parents have cumulatively placed A in the middle of their dispute such that his emotional needs became so great that the local authority initiated a child protection plan. In the run-up to the allegation arising on 11 December 2024, A had been told by the mother that the arrangements for Christmas involved some loss of her time as a result of the father’s interpretation of the order. A may well have told her that he was unhappy spending such a long period with his father particularly given the absence of any facetime contact with his mother.

By this point, it is reasonable to infer that A was looking for a way to avoid this outcome. His mother was plainly sympathetic to his concern. This may explain how an allegation of some sort arose, stitched amongst different problems with different causes (such as his father applying cream to his bottom in the bathroom on one occasion).

It is also worthy of note that A had by that stage reached an age when he had undergone lessons about appropriate touching. This issue would have been alive in his mind.

Placing all of the evidence together, I am unable on a balance of probability to find that A was sexually abused as alleged. The allegation was borne out of a fertile environment of distrust and poor communication. The process of repeated questioning was inappropriate and poorly recorded (at least so far as the documentation disclosed in these proceedings has established). The first ABE interview appears not to have been based on any planning beyond the existence of the intermediary report. The account is limited (excluding much reference to the shower as a venue of abuse) and leaves many questions unanswered: the lack of chronology; the lack of experiential detail; the lack of evidence of sexual motivation (including arousal). It appeared to me that A was ready or primed to repeat the fact that his father had touched his “[redacted]”. The approbation for his accounts and the leading question about his father “rubbing” impact the forensic weight to be attached to the answers.

Accordingly, I find that A was not sexually abused and the welfare outcome must proceed on that basis.

I reject the father’s basic premise that the arrangements in June 2023 broke down because the mother set her face against them.

The father ran this case as one of alienating behaviour but in my judgment that was unjustified. The mother had been suspected of such behaviours by the original CAFCASS Officer, Ms Seedwell and the Local Authority.

Having considered the relevant FJC guidance (December 2024), I reject the father’s case for the following reasons: -

In reaching my decision I have considered the welfare checklist, recognise the importance of establishing a relationship between A and his father and note that there are cases where a shared live with order may help to place parties on an equal footing as the Magistrates attempted to do on 7 June 2023.

There is no good reason to rebut the presumption that the father should be involved in A’s life. The issue is the risk of harm to A of a continuation of the distorted patterns of behaviour which I chart within this judgment as against the importance to A of having a beneficial relationship with his father. The dislocation in direct contact since December 2024 is a further issue in terms of the pace and effect of change on A. The final question is how best to achieve flexibility so that the development moves consistently with A’s growing confidence and the ability of the parents to demonstrate effective parenting as against the need to provide a roadmap of some sort for the future.

By the point of submissions, having asked the parties to reflect on the evidence, there was a measure of agreement.

Firstly, there was no dispute that this is the last opportunity for the parents to demonstrate that they are willing, able and committed to working constructively with each other and the local authority.

Secondly, notwithstanding the existence of a child protection plan and having consulted with the local authority, it was agreed that a family assistance order should be made directed to the local authority for a period of 12 months.

Thirdly, both parents accept that A has been burdened with professionals asking him his wishes and feelings for too long. It was important for there to be a cessation of litigation in his life. In my judgment, the parents must by their actions demonstrate that they are willing to exercise their responsibility as parents reasonably. It is not appropriate for them to delegate their dysfunction by needless applications to the Family Court. There is no reason to believe that the arrangements which I shall set out cannot be appropriately advanced without resort to the court. In my judgment, it is important to place responsibility to resolve issues in the hands of the parents. Were they to fail again then the local authority may well have to assess whether A is thereby at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and if so, issue proceedings for a care or supervision order. Accordingly, it was agreed that a section 91(14) order should be made against both of them for 2 years.

I agree. Further litigation will, in my judgment, involve a risk of emotional harm to A (section 91A(2); A Local Authority v F and Others [2022] EWFC 127 per Gwynneth Knowles, J). Paragraph 2.3 of PD12Q refers specifically to the situation “where a period of respite is needed following litigation”. I am satisfied that A’s welfare requires me to give him a pause from the litigation and so far as possible from the parental dispute, which risks blighting his minority.

Fourthly, no party dissents from a recital as to Parental Responsibility in the order: -

“It is recorded by the court that the parties share joint and equal parental responsibility for the child and therefore the parties shall share and consult with each other in advance of making important decisions about the A’s welfare including but not limited to foreign travel, religion, education, and health.”

Given the period since A last had direct contact with his father on 11 December 2024, it is agreed that he should begin to spend time with his father given my findings. Both parties urge the court to provide a roadmap.

The different emphasis as to the degree of specificity in the order and whether the order should be made as a shared live with order illustrates the level of distrust between them.

The father seeks a shared live with order which cements his role in A’s life and which builds definitively to a return to at least the pattern in June 2023 over a defined period. The draft order proposed by Mr Murray looks to establish overnight contact from week 14 and alternate weekend contact from week 18. By Easter 2026, he envisages that all school holidays should be shared equally.

The problem with his suggestion is that it does not recognise that there were significant problems with the arrangement for A, which remain to be resolved. It is not in A’s best interests to revert to a pattern of previous dysfunction thereby exposing him to a continuing risk of significant emotional harm. The notion of a shared live with order did not achieve the desired objective, exposed A to significant parental discord and confuses the daily arrangements with the role of each parent in his life. There may be cases where a shared live with order can provide an important message of joint value but in this case, it has merely been another feature of the dispute.

The parents and in particular, the father need to demonstrate that his words, which appeared sincere and thoughtful, are seen in his behaviour. The mother must demonstrate by her words and actions that she gives permission to A to enjoy a relationship with his father. She must demonstrate an ability to recognise the impact of her actions and to encourage her son. Ultimately, the pace of change must be driven by evidence that A is managing that change well and in so doing is being supported properly by his parents. It is not a case in which I can confidently set out a timescale for the progression of contact. It is preferable to ensure that SW2, the local authority allocated social worker, is able to support the parents with a family intervention worker and critically, ensure that the reintroduction proceeds in a careful, planned and ultimately successful way for A. The local authority as lead agency maintain responsibility under the child protection plan and will be the recipient of a family assistance order.

The mother supported by the Children’s Guardian proposes a ten-week pattern of contact with no explicit start date for staying contact.

The problem with that proposal is that there needs to be greater clarity about the future. They accepted that a system of 3 monthly reviews could be utilised as staging posts to examine developments within the contact.

In my judgment, A needs to be allowed to develop a relationship with his father but at a pace and in a manner which is not likely to provoke further significant discord. That requires the court to proceed firmly but flexibly.

In my judgment, there must be an order for the mother to make A available for reasonable contact to the father. That is the governing clause.

Secondly, there should be provision for a short video of the father as proposed by the Children’s Guardian.

Thirdly, the mother should be present at the re-introduction of contact to support the arrangements so long as the Local Authority regard it as appropriate but it is not envisaged to continue beyond an initial period.

Fourthly, I specifically endorse the Guardian’s contact plan over at least 12 weeks (week 9 arrangements to be repeated) leading to a review at that point in the expectation that the introduction of an overnight contact will commence by agreement unless there is good evidence to believe that such will place A at risk of harm (such evaluation including the behaviour and progress of the parents). The Local Authority will advise the parents accordingly.

Fifthly, if that proceeds then at a further review after 24 weeks, there will be an expectation of introducing a longer or more frequent periods of staying contact on the same basis.

Sixthly, before the end of the family assistance order, the expectation is that A will stay with his father regularly at the weekend during term-time and for periods in the school holiday (shared broadly equally if A is happy to do so and on the basis that he can facetime the other parent flexibly).

The parties can, with Local Authority assistance, agree arrangements for handovers. They must do so. They must both be reasonably comfortable with the arrangement.

In my judgment, it is important to describe A’s home with his mother by making a child arrangements order to confirm that he lives with her. Within their evidence, neither parent regarded the shared live with order as successful nor does it represent the reality for A. It is not a victory or a loss. In order to rebuild the relationship with his father, it is important that there is clarity about this issue. I do not regard the messaging function of a shared live with order as being of benefit to A and note the recital as to parental responsibility which establishes the importance of both parents in his life.

Finally, this litigation must come to an end. It has been an enormous drain on the emotional and financial resources of the parents. A needs it to come to an end. Subject to the achievement of a clear roadmap on the basis that the parents do not repeat their past errors, there is no good reason to adjourn for review and/or further assessment (including psychological if necessary) of the family.

The Local Authority will need to keep a careful eye on matters and determine what, if any, further assessment is necessary.

That is my judgment.

A draft of this judgment was sent to the advocates on 29 October 2025. I received proposed typographical amendments from the advocates on 3 November 2025.