F v M & Ors

The Court is concerned with the welfare of X who is aged 3. Her mother is M, an Australian citizen (“the mother”) and her father is F (“the father”).

The matter currently before the Court is the final hearing of the mother’s application to relocate to Australia and the Court’s consideration of Final Child Arrangements Orders to be made for X. X has been the subject of these proceedings for most of her young life. The father’s application which initiated these proceedings is dated 18.1.2023 when X was only 6 months old. Her NYAS Caseworker has made an application for a 91.14 Order to be made to remain in place until X is aged 13.

Although both parents have at times within these proceedings been legally represented both are litigants in person at this hearing and QLRs have attended for each of them, Ms Oluwafemi for the mother and Mr Hussain for the father. I am grateful to both for attending, although in the event neither were actually called upon to conduct any cross examination. Additionally both parents were supported by McKenzie Friends. I am particularly grateful to Ms Y who supported the mother for the efforts that she made to try to facilitate the mother’s engagement with the hearing.

I have had access to the Court bundle which extends to over 1,800 pages.

I refer to the approved note of my judgment handed down following the hearing that took place 4-6^th June 2025 for the brief background of the parents’ relationship which commenced in August 2018 and ended in December 2022 and the events which followed which led to the father commencing these proceedings on 18^th January 2023. These proceedings have been on-going for 3 years and there is a complex procedural history which includes multiple case management hearings, interim hearings and appeals to both the Circuit Bench and to the High Court lodged by the Mother.

The mother is an Australian National who travelled to the UK in 2018 on a Youth Mobility Visa. She returned to Australia in 2019 to obtain an Ancestry visa which expired in November 2024. She subsequently applied for Indefinite Leave to remain in the UK, but this application was unsuccessful. The most recent information available to the Court is that the mother is awaiting the outcome of a fee waiver application before she is able to make an application for a parent visa. The parent visa application process can take up to 12 months to determine. The mother would like to return to live in Australia with X.

At the hearing which concluded on 6^th June 2025 after a careful consideration of all of the evidence before the Court at that time I made findings to the effect that:

The mother has repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations of domestic abuse against the father and based upon them has moved home with X (on her account 17 times during the last 12 months). She continues to develop further allegations and appears to focus on this to the apparent exclusion of everything else. This has included a police report on 20.4.25 against the father for stalking on the basis that a male of similar build and appearance was seen in the vicinity of her home; the father was in fact in Wales at that time.

The allegations made by the mother to the Court and Agencies have escalated to include her self-assessment that the father presents a critical homicide risk to herself and to X (made following the use by her of a discredited Domestic Abuse Assessment Tool which is not supported by the police or any independent agency). Additionally she alleged that the father has sexually abused X. When scrutinised by the Police and Children’s Services the allegations made by the mother have been found to be unsubstantiated and have been discredited. No action has been taken against the father by the police.

The mother appears to be engaging in a pattern of behaviour in which she presents serious allegations to diverse agencies accompanied by a narrative that they are substantiated and are being acted upon by other agencies, such that they are given a credence which is inappropriate and misplaced. This has had the effect that agencies are not gaining a full or accurate assessment of the family dynamic and are at risk of acting against the background of a discredited and false narrative advanced by the mother. As a consequence the father has been excluded from information to which he is entitled by virtue of his parental responsibility and X is being deprived of the agency input and protection to which she is entitled and which is necessary to safeguard her welfare.

The mother’s belief in her allegations appears to be her central and unwavering focus. There is a risk that her anxiety and narrative in relation to the father will be communicated to X who is at risk of being alienated from him.

The mother has obstructed X being seen on a 1-1 basis by her Social Worker, has refused to allow statutory visits to take place and has obstructed the Local Authority undertaking the s37 Assessment as ordered by the Court thereby depriving her of support.

The mother has repeatedly breached Court Orders in relation to assessment of her parenting capacity, mental health and case management.

There are no safeguarding concerns for X in the care of her father or in the care of the father’s extended family and friends network

The mother is able to meet X’s basic care needs but by her actions present serious safeguarding concerns for X because of her inability to prioritise and meet X’s emotional needs. The mother has caused X to suffer emotional harm by wilfully and repeatedly breaching Court Ordered contact for X with her father with the effect that their relationship has been subjected to repeated disruption for substantial periods of time; by moving home with her 18 times within a 12 month period; and by the mother’s intense and unwarranted focus on domestic abuse.

Those findings led me to make an Interim Care Order in respect of X. At the subsequent review hearing on 26^th June 2025 I approved the care plan of Surrey Children’s Services (“LA”) for X’s residence to be transferred from her mother to her father which was effected on 27^th June 2025 pursuant to a Recovery Order, with support being provided by Cambridgeshire Police.

It is relevant to say that immediately following the making of the ICO on 6^th June 2025 the LA’s care plan had been for X to remain living with the mother on the basis that although threshold had been found to have been met, there was not, in the view of the LA, such immediate risk of harm to X in her mother’s care to justify her interim removal. Their plan for X had changed by 26^th June due to the mother challenging engagement with the SW, not co-operating with their s37 investigations; and her intractable refusal to make X available for contact with the father. The LA’s care plan changed from X living with the mother to X living with the father. The Care Plan states, “Given the concerns regarding M’s potential flight risk and the incident during recovery of X on 27th June where she was overheard telling X that her father would harm her, it is essential that X’s contact with her mother be supervised. This measure ensures X’s safety while allowing her to maintain a relationship with her mother.” [J151]

X has remained living with the father ever since. Under the ICO Surrey County Council have funded supervised contact twice each week, on a Wednesday and on a Saturday, for 2 hours on each occasion at the AB Centre. In addition telephone contact has been taking place facilitated by members of the father’s extended family.

The LA’s s37 Assessment and an up to date Addendum are now available to the Court. X’s NYAS Caseworker has continued her assessment and I have her Final Analysis. I have received and considered the father’s final (10^th) witness statement.

Regrettably the mother did not file or serve her Court Ordered witness statement which was due by 4pm on 10^th November 2025 until the first day of this Final Hearing. This notwithstanding that at the Pre Trial Review on 1^st September 2025. I had expressly agreed the filing date with her giving her as much time as possible prior to the commencement of this Hearing. The statement that she filed was sent to the Court at 7.21am on 19^th November, it was 33 pages long as opposed to the 15 pages which had been permitted. Due to the lateness of filing none of the Court, the father (or his QLR), the Social Worker or NYAS Case Worker and Counsel had had the opportunity of considering it’s contents.

I allowed the mother to make an oral relief from sanction application at the outset of the hearing and heard representations from the other parties all of whom opposed. At an early point during my ex tempore judgment on this issue the mother left the hearing room in a highly emotional state. I adjourned to allow her time to compose herself and rejoin but her McKenzie Friend (Ms Y) confirmed that she did not intend to do so. I completed my ex tempore judgment on her application; did not allow the late statement to be adduced, and adjourned for an early lunch at 12.35pm until 2pm to allow the mother additional time. Unfortunately the mother decided not to return and via Ms Y the Court was informed that the mother had left Court for the day and was travelling home. The Mother’s QLR Ms Oluwafemi attended the hearing at 2pm and passed to me a note taken by her at the mother’s direction for my attention which read as follows:

“I Y, am instructing and informing my QLR that I will not be continuing the final proceedings due to the bullying, lack of fair process and biased comments with regard to the hearing with DJ Murphy on 9th November 2025.

The environment within that courtroom was hostile and not something I can participate fully in if my priority is my child, her welfare and my mental health.

For this reason, I will not be continuing today. I give my QLR consent to not proceed with questioning.

Y

In the mother’s absence I was informed that in advance of the hearing there had been a discussion between the parties and SW that the contact arrangements for X this week would need to be altered to take account of the Court Hearing. I was told that nonetheless the mother had “insisted” upon her normal 3pm Wednesday contact session taking place and that the Social Worker had therefore provided a travel pass to her for this purpose. It therefore appears that the mother may not have intended to remain at Court to take part in the hearing on Wednesday afternoon.

The hearing of the substantive matters commenced and proceeded in the mother’s absence after over half of the first day had been lost. I heard the evidence of the father, the Social Worker, and part heard the NYAS Caseworker on 19^th November, who completed her evidence on 20^th

I had hoped that the mother would reconsider and rejoin the hearing on 20^th November 2025 and for that purpose requested Mr Hussain who was the father’s QLR to return on Day 2 of the hearing so that the mother could be cross examined on the father’s behalf. Unfortunately she chose not to attend. The NYAS Case Worker completed her evidence and I heard the parties’ closing submissions.

I have taken account of the evidence filed at the Court in compliance with the Court’s Orders, which includes amongst other things the mother’s earlier statements, the father’s witness statements, the s37 report and addendum, the Local Authority and Police disclosure, the NYAS Caseworker’s analyses, the notes of the mother’s supervised contact with X, the parties’ Position Statements (which include that filed by the mother) and the oral evidence of the father, X’s Social Worker and her NYAS Case Worker.

The Issues before the Court

The Child Arrangements which should be made for X. Whether the Interim Care Order made for X should be discharged and if so with whom X shall live and the arrangements for her to spend time with her non-resident parent;

The Mother’s application for permission to relocate to Australia with X;

The NYAS Caseworker’s application for a 91.14 Order to be made which shall remain in place until X attains the age of 13 years.

The Father’s application for a costs order to be made in his favour against the mother.

The mother seeks that X is returned to her full-time primary care either immediately or via a rapid reunification plan starting with immediate unsupervised contact, rapid progression to overnight contact, return to the mother’s primary care within a short and defined timescale and directions that Surrey Children’s Services comply with all s17 responsibilities.

The father seeks orders for the discharge of the ICO and that a final lives with order is made in his favour. He seeks an order that X’s contact with the mother should continue to be supervised indefinitely on the basis that nothing else would be safe for X.

He asks that the contact should be defined and adjusted to take account of the difficulties of his trying to make arrangements with the mother, the difficulties of facilitating telephone contact and the fact that X currently attends pre-school 5 days a week and will start school in September 2026.

He seeks a discharge of the PSO which limits his travel with X outside of the jurisdiction; and that the PSO which prohibits the mother from removing X from his care be maintained pending further Order of the Court.

Further he seeks a SIO to the effect that he alone may hold and renew any passport that X holds.

He supports NYAS’ application for a S91.14 to grant a respite and to safeguard X from repeated litigation in respect of future applications by the mother under s8 Children Act 1989, such order to remain in place until X is aged 13 and is able to express her own wishes and feelings.

The father’s position is fully supported by both the LA and by NYAS. The LA view is that supervision is essential to safeguard X. The NYAS Caseworker’s view is that it is essential that all contact which takes place between X and her mother must be supervised by a professional supervisors who have a knowledge and understanding of the risks of emotional harm presented by the mother. It is her view that if this is not in place, or if notwithstanding it X is exposed to the impact of her mother’s unstable lifestyle and alienating behaviours, then indirect contact with the mother and the maternal family would be necessary in X’s best interests.

NYAS, the LA and the father are in full agreement that the mother continues to present a risk of harm to X by reason of:

The findings made by the Court on 6^th June 2025 which are set out at paragraph 7 above remain and form part of the factual matrix of this case. In addition NYAS invites the Court to make specific findings in relation to risks for X should unsupervised contact with the mother be introduced at this stage. The findings sought are as follows:

The risk of abduction would be high;

It is likely that the mother would denigrate the father to X given her unshakeable belief that the father is a serious risk to X

The mother’s unassessed and currently untreated mental health difficulties and unregulated use of street cannabis represent risks of physical harm, emotional harm, and neglect to X;

The mother would use unsupervised contact as an opportunity to prove that X is abused, unwell or badly cared for by the father.

In addition to giving careful consideration to the documents, statements and assessments within the very extensive Court Bundle I have taken account the oral evidence that I heard from the father, the Social Worker and the NYAS Caseworker.

The father gave his evidence in a clear, straightforward, balanced and calm manner. He has clearly found these proceedings emotionally and mentally distressing and exhausting. Notwithstanding he has complied with all Court Orders, has attended all hearings and engaged with all professionals in an exemplary fashion. He told the Court that all he has ever wanted is to be able to be a father to his daughter. When he started the proceedings he was seeking a spends time with order and the events that have unfolded which led to an Interim Care Order and change of residence in his favour have occurred as a direct result of the mother’s behaviour. As in earlier hearings, I was left in no doubt at all that the father loves X deeply and will go to tremendous lengths to prioritise and promote her best interests and welfare and to work with professionals to achieve this. He was cross examined by Counsel for NYAS, but not on behalf of the mother in compliance with her specific instructions to her QLR.

On the basis that X remains living with him the father confirmed his commitment to supporting X to have a loving and nurturing relationship with her mother. He has worked hard to support and enable the contact that the LA have arranged for the mother pursuant to their s31 responsibilities. He did however express concern about how he would manage any future arrangements if he had to deal directly with the mother without the buffer of LA support. He described the mother’s communications on the parenting app as “aggressive”. He said that there would need to be a very rigid and defined plan for contact which gave X the best opportunity to spend quality time both with the mother and also at home with her paternal family with provision for him to take X on holiday. He explained the difficulties that he has encountered with contact even when it is supervised at the contact centre. He described the mother’s body checks of X at each contact as intrusive and inappropriate and believes that they are being conducted for the purpose of trying to identify bruises which lead to groundless allegations of abuse or inadequate care of X by him and/or his family. He told the Court that the impact of living with this risks limiting X’s access to a normal healthy childhood because her carers are fearful of the mother’s allegations. He informed the Court of an incident on 14.11.25 when he arrived at his entrance of the contact centre to collect X. The mother had walked round the centre to the side allocated to him and approached, screaming at him without any regard to whether X was with him or within earshot. He was intimidated and unsettled by the experience. I am told that the entrances for parents are segregated in such a way that paths do not cross.

When asked about the wider maternal family he told the Court that he does not know them beyond the very negative accounts that the mother gave him of them. They have his contact details but have not contacted him to be involved in X’s life save for the Maternal Great Grandmother sending him an email about drugs, and a further email about child abduction and children being lost in the system, both of which he found to be disturbing and intimidating. He confirmed nonetheless that he wanted X to have every relationship which would be helpful to her but would want appropriate background and safeguarding checks to be carried out first.

The father outlined the difficulties with facilitating telephone contact. He finds the messages from the mother via the parenting app to be aggressive, oppressive, intrusive and demanding and says that with limited exceptions X does not want to engage with this form of contact which can create a very stressful experience for him and his wider family who have to facilitate it.

He also raised a concern about the mother’s advocate writing about this case on social media

The Social Worker also gave her evidence and was cross examined by the father and Counsel for NYAS. She gave her evidence in a clear, balanced and straightforward way to assist the Court.

The s37 report and its addendum are highly supportive of the father’s continuing care for X describing her as “thriving in her father’s care, where she experiences stability, consistency, and emotional security….whilst demonstrating ….full co-operation with professionals and .. maintaining ..open communication with the Local Authority. He ensures that X’s daily needs, health, education and emotional development are met in a calm and structured home environment” [J591]. In contrast the LA highlights serious concerns about on-going risks of harm to her presented by the mother which they summarise as “ongoing emotional instability, use of cannabis, flight risk and inconsistent engagement with professionals…which… “present ongoing risks that make unsupervised care unsafe at this time”

The SW agreed with the father that the contact via video calls was not working well because X generally refused to engage with them. She said that the LA had found it difficult to work with the mother who would only engage on her own terms and when her advocate, was available to join the calls. She expressed concerns about the mother’s mental and the view that the mother may be traumatised from her past experiences which was affecting her behaviour and impacting on her parenting but had completely refused to engage with the support that had been offered to her.

The SW’s view is that the mother will continue to make allegations about the father and that “it is only a matter of time before this family is back at Court”.

She considers that the mother remains a flight risk; that she is and will continue to be defiant of Court orders, including (if given the opportunity) the Prohibited Steps Order preventing her removal of X from the father’s care. Her observation is that the mother will only do what she wants to do, and that this does not currently include working with Agencies.

Her view is that although at present X’s relationship with her mother is positive there are concerns about the mother’s behaviour even at the contact centre because of the body checks and examinations that the mother carries out and her negative and malign narrative about the father. She said that the LA is concerned that the relationship between the mother and X may become emotionally harmful to X. She said that the mother presents as very unpredictable, can behave in an unregulated manner, that the risks presented by her cannabis use remain, and that her mental health is a concern.

Similarly the NYAS Caseworker gave her evidence in a clear, considered and straight forward way. It was clear to me that she had very much hoped that the mother would take the opportunities offered to her to address her mental health issues and develop her parenting capacity so that she could prioritise X’s need to have both parents fully involved and working together in her best interests. The initial analysis shows that the caseworker hoped that the mother would demonstrate motivation to engage with the support being offered to her so that she would be assisted to prioritise and meet X’s need to have a full and equal relationship with both of her parents. Her final analysis records that despite the LA having worked hard to try and address a way forward that benefits X having both parents in her life the mother has declined every opportunity to engage in support, and remains unable to move forward. She expresses the conclusion that “M demonstrates that she cannot/will not accept F as being a positive influence in X’s life and will continue to undermine and malign any decision that does not accord with her views” [G32]. It was clear to me that the caseworker is concerned that the mother presents a risk of emotional harm to X and for this reason she was equivocal about the risk analysis of recommending that direct contact should continue. Nevertheless, ultimately she recommended that it would be in X’s best interests that it does subject to a strict proviso that it is appropriately supervised by a professional supervisor who is aware of the nature of the risks presented by the mother’s behaviour.

The caseworker confirmed that her experience of trying to work with the mother had been difficult because the mother had not been willing to meet with her without her Advocate being present. She said that on one occasion she had attended the contact centre to meet with the mother to discuss matters but that the mother had sworn at her and refused to engage. She expressed the view that “everyone is grappling with trying to ensure that X has a relationship with the mother but she is still not complying with Orders” She said that “we have to consider the emotional harm to X. The mother is not able to move beyond domestic abuse and declines every opportunity to move forward. We are having to focus on the mother’s needs and not X’s needs”. She confirmed that there remain legitimate concerns for X even with supervision of the mother’s contact with her. She expressed the view that the continued involvement of the LA was giving the mother a platform to make further allegations, and the impact of the mother’s behaviour on Xand on the father and on his ability to remain emotionally available to X needed to be taken into account.

She said that the father is a positive influence on X’s life and noted that he was prioritising X’s best interests. She contrasted the high level of stability, care and security that the father provides with the evidence before the Court that X’s needs were not prioritised by the mother. She referred to only unannounced visit which had been made when X was in her mother’s care when X was found to be hungry, unwashed and wearing soiled pyjamas. She noted that the mother is currently unable and unwilling to prioritise X’s emotional needs above her own. It is the caseworker’s her view that the mother will undermine any decision that the father takes which does not align with her views. She does not believe that the mother will accept any mental health support until she thinks that there is a need for her to change, and at the moment she does not, with the effect that her sole focus is on domestic abuse.

In relation to the incident when the mother had screamed at the father whilst he was at the contact centre on 14.11.25 she said that the mother have had to have gone all around the contact centre to get to the father’s area which was a situation which should never have arisen.

She raised concerns about the impact of the mother’s behaviour on X giving the example that when X had a few coins in a purse she relayed that she “was saving them for a passport”. She expressed a high level of concern about the flight risk posed by the mother who actively explored ways to unlawfully leave the UK with X. She referenced the mother’s dishonesty to the Court and her continued insistence that if X were in her care then the father would only be able to have supervised contact with her if he admitted that he was a perpetrator of abuse, and undertook a course.

She supports the Orders sought by the father. In relation to the s91.14 Order she expressed the view that it was very important to the mother that everyone agrees with her views and when anyone does not then she makes and then escalates complaints (for example she has made complaints about and sought the removal of the NYAS Caseworker, and of the Social Worker of whom she has made an allegation of perjury which is being pursued via Social Care England) which cause delays and which are not in X’s best interest. She is firmly of the view that further family law proceedings would be brought by the mother unless the scope for this is restrained. She is firmly of the view that further proceedings could cause emotional harm to X who now needs to be able to enjoy stability and security in her father’s care. She recommends that this order should remain in place until X is 13, by which time she will have formed her own views and be old enough to have her own voice to express her wishes and feelings.

NYAS have requested that I make further findings (as set out above in paragraph 27) to form the factual matrix of this case based on the evidence before the Court. In considering this I have at the forefront of my mind that the standard of proof is that of the balance of probability, and the burden of proof rests with the party seeking the finding. Findings must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. The court may take into account the inherent probabilities of an allegation. The court surveys a wide canvas. It must take into account all of the evidence, and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence.

Section 1 and section 1(3) of the welfare checklist apply. X’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. In determining the child’s welfare the court is to have regard to the welfare checklist.

I remind myself of the law relating to relocation which is that the child’s welfare considered in the light of the welfare checklist must be the court’s paramount consideration.

The court is to presume unless the contrary is shown that the involvement of a parent in the life of a child concerned will further the child’s welfare. The term “involvement” means involvement of some kind either direct or indirect but not any particular division of time.

The court should also have regard to the general principle that delay in determining a question is likely to be prejudicial to the child’s welfare and that it must not make the order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

And finally, I remind myself that the Article 8 rights to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 are engaged in this case, as are the rights under Article 6 to a fair hearing. I have regard to the Article 8 rights of the mother, the father, and of X but I bear in mind that where there is a tension between the Art. 8 rights of a child on the one hand and of the parent on the other, the rights of the child prevail (Yousef v Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210).

Findings sought by NYAS

A 3 day hearing in this matter took place between 4-6^th June 2025. The mother failed to attend in person on the first day but lodged an unissued application to attend remotely. She was permitted to attend via video to make that and other last minute applications which were refused. On day two of the hearing [5^th June] the mother sent an email to the Court indicating that she was en route to Court but had missed her connecting train. Attempts were made to contact the mother by telephone but she did not answer the calls [D75]. In fact this was untrue as is shown from the Record of Strategy Discussion dated 6^th June 2025 [J281-J285] which shows that the mother had in fact travelled to London with X at 5.30am on 5^th June 2025 because “there was a court case and she was concerned about the outcome”. She stayed at a hotel without giving a name or address with the intention of making her way to the Australian Embassy with a view to seeking asylum. She also attended the Ecuadorian Embassy and the Slovakian Embassy “trying to get passports from them”. [J282] Surrey Police issued a port alert to put flags on the mother if she attempted to leave the country.

The mother’s own account of this incident is that she does not pose a flight risk and that any suggestion to the contrary was originated by the father, is unsubstantiated and has been repeated without evidential basis by professionals involved in these proceedings. She says that her attendance at the Australian Embassy was to seek support as a foreign national. [C242]. She gave a different account to the SW Manager on 20.8.25 when she said “she could not get to court or get childcare” [J565]

This is demonstrated to be untrue by the Missing Person’s Report made by an associate of the mother’s who reported having “ overheard a conversation between an Australian MP, M and her IDVA. They were discussing M attending embassies in London to seek assistance and how M could flee to Ireland, into Southern Ireland and then across to Cyprus. They also discussed M disguising herself with different clothing and dying her hair. M was due to attend family court in Guilford on the 5th June, regarding custody of her child who is 2 years old. M did not attend court and called her advocate at around lunchtime via WhatsApp. She stated that she would not be attending as she knew they would take her child from her.”…..[C453]

Taking all of the evidence into account and viewing it as a whole, and noting the evidence in relation to the mother’s mental health presentation, her uncertain immigration status, and the restrictive orders which have been implemented against her I am satisfied on the balance of probability that in the event that the mother was permitted unsupervised contact with X the risk of her abduction by the mother is high.

Throughout these proceedings the mother has persistently made allegations of domestic abuse of the most serious nature against the father, including that she and X are at risk of being murdered by him. None of the mother’s allegations have been substantiated to any degree or in any respect Cafcass, NYAS, Children’s Services or by the Police. Notwithstanding this the mother’s firm, unshakeable and sole focus throughout these proceedings has been and remains on the domestic abuse that she claims has taken place, and the risk that the father continues to present.

It should be noted that the evidence before the Court of the WhatsApp messages that have passed between the parents do not contain any suggestion at all of any form of abuse from the father against the mother at any point, in fact, quite the contrary. It should also be noted that although the mother has continued to make her allegations to Children’s Services, the Police and to the Court and has said that she has evidence to support them, she has not produced any such evidence.

At the point that the Recovery Order was effected, whilst X was being held in her mother’s arms “she alleged that X’s father posed a danger to the child stating he “would hurt her and probably kill her”.[J212]. The mother’s narrative in this regard has continued. An example of this can be found in the record of the mother’s meeting with the SW manager on 20.8.25 when she said “she has safeguarding concerns for Father’s care. She was concerned that X was not being parented properly. She was concerned about bruising on X. M raised recent concerns around 7 fingerprint bruising on X”. The mother attended this meeting with her advocate who added “that SCS need to do more and that this will be another Sara Shariff incident”. Further, the mother’s narrative that the father poses a high level of risk to X forms the focus of all of her statements to the Court, including the Position Statement that she has filed for this Final Hearing.

I have reviewed the contact notes and note that under conditions of supervision the mother responds appropriately and positively to comments made by X about her father and has not spoken negatively about him to X, for example during a session when X spoke frequently about the father, the mother is recorded as having responded, “oh that’s interesting and that’s nice” [P13]. However, the records also demonstrate that the mother continues on a regular basis to express her concerns about X being subject to abusive treatment and harm in his care to the SWs and contact supervisors.

Taking the evidence as a whole I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mother’s persistent denigration of the father to professionals involved in this case would extend to her communicating this narrative directly X given her unshakeable belief that the father is a serious risk to X if the contact was not supervised.

The mother has referred to having a diagnosis of complex PTSD for which a referral to a secondary mental health clinic was recommended [C116]. She suffers from panic attacks and has referred to suffering from psychosis. In text exchanges with the paternal grandmother on 20.8.2019 she said “I had a bad mental breakdown the other night because I stopped taking my meds for a week…it was very scary and I completely forgot that I wasn’t supposed to stop straight away…” “I felt like I went insane ..very scary”. She has referred to having had 2 episodes of psychosis which she has said were confirmed as such by a psychologist and doctor, adding “apparently I tried to jump out of the car that night. I don’t remember is at all..apparently it’s in episodes…bc [because] it’s massively in my family the likelihood is increased” [C118]. She describes her panic attacks in the following terms “can’t handle small-large crowds and get extreme anxiety in public. Panic attacks in these situations. Can’t handle certain styles or frequencies of sound” [C154]

She has described herself as being on the Autistic spectrum and was diagnosed with ADHD in November 2021. Her GP confirms that she has suffered from anxiety and depression for a number of years.

The medical evidence filed with the Court shows that the mother was seen at the NHS XYZ Mental Health Services on 24.4.23 when she reported using cannabis and awaiting treatment with the Cannabis-ADHD clinic in London with the plan that “once they have decided her treatment which should be soon she will go private therapy [sic] which is more suitable due to multiple traumas she wishes to discuss... She is taking cannabis medicinally and is under the above mentioned clinic” [H18].

The information provided by the Z Clinic confirms that following an initial consultation on 17.4.23 the mother did not give an honest account of her medical history to the prescribing clinician in that she denied ever having any symptoms of psychosis. She gave assurances that she would never be in charge of X (then 9.5 months old) or drive a vehicle when potentially impaired by cannabis. She was required to provide evidence of a locked box in which she would keep the products, away from X’s reach before any prescription would be issued to her. She was issued with a prescription for day and night use “to manage her symptoms of anxiety, mood disturbance, and poor sleep” which, if used as prescribed would last for 1 month following which a medical review would take place. That prescription was not collected by her; she did not attend for a medical review nor seek any further treatment from them. Since that time the evidence shows that the mother has continued to source and use street cannabis of unknown quantity and formulation.

The clinician that the mother saw at the Z Clinic identifies potential adverse effects of medicinal cannabis use as “cognitive effects such as disorientation, dizziness, drowsiness, memory impairment, impaired judgment or impaired coordination. Mental health symptoms might include euphoria, hallucinations, anxiety, paranoia or depression. There is a potential risk of precipitating or worsening psychosis in vulnerable individuals”.

The Court has directed the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment on no less than 5 occasions, on 17.5.24; 31.7.24; 22.10.24; 2.5.25 and 15.7.25. When legally represented the mother repeatedly consented to this assessment taking place and the later orders provide for the costs of the assessment to be borne by the child’s funding certificate. Despite appointments being arranged the mother repeatedly failed to attend, at considerable wasted cost. The mother was repeatedly warned that the Court may draw adverse inferences from her failure to comply with this direction.

Finally, whilst legally represented, an oral application was made on the mother’s behalf for a psychological assessment to be undertaken of her, which she said was more appropriate. That was not progressed by her, none of the most basic of the necessary requirements of Part 25 – the name of the proposed expert, costs and timescale were ever forthcoming and ultimately the direction for a medical assessment was discharged at the Pre Trial Review.

There is evidence of the mother’s presentation being impacted by her cannabis use. On 20.8.25 when the mother attended a meeting with a SW Manager it is recorded that “She would often sit for a few minutes, then pace trying to tidy the room and she presented as clearly emotional finding things very difficult currently and we discussed her seeking mental health support during this difficult time. M collected her belongings together and during this time I could smell a very strong smell of cannabis coming from her items.”[J565]. On the same day the mother became distressed following an unexpected meeting with the NYAS Caseworker when she swore at her saying “She’s not a fucking guardian. She stole my baby”.

There is evidence that the mother did not keep her cannabis securely away from X. On 25.7.23 during a supervised contact session which the father attended he found “a smoking vaporiser with the bottom detached and the teat of X’s dummy inside it”. The supervisors observed a dusty residue and a strong odour, which they believed to be cannabis. A MASH referral was made by them and the mother was given words of advice by the police. [C212/217]. The mother sought to blame the father for the presence of cannabis on this occasion suggesting that it had been planted by him even though this is contradicted by the contact supervision notes. This incident would appear to cast doubt on the mother’s claim that she restricted her cannabis use to 2-3 am when X was asleep and it would be several hours before she would be awake, and that her cannabis was kept securely at all times and well away from X.

I refer to the s37 report prepared by the LA dated 29.10.25 which sets out the impact of the mother’s cannabis use on her parenting capacity. In addition to the incidents mentioned above when the LA made an unannounced visit to X they noted cause for concern about the care given to her by the mother – she was visibly hungry, asking for food, wearing soiled pyjamas and no footwear. They conclude that the mother’s storage and handling of cannabis near X’s belongings is inappropriate and risks secondary exposure and that her continued use despite professional oversight further undermines trust and co-operation between her and the LA.

The mother has been offered considerable support and assistance for her mental health issues by the Local Authority within its support plan. The mother has refused all such assistance saying that she is receiving support via her GP. The evidence before the Court suggests that this is untrue and that the mother is only on a waiting list for clinical assessment [J588].

Taking all of the evidence into account I am satisfied that in the event that unsupervised contact with the mother with X was granted the mother’s unassessed and currently untreated mental health difficulties and unregulated use of street cannabis represent risks of physical harm, emotional harm, and neglect to X

The mother has a profoundly negative perception of the father and an extremely damaging narrative of him that he has perpetrated abuse against her, and presents the highest level of risk to both her and to X. There is no evidence at all before the Court that the father is the perpetrator of domestic abuse against the mother or X.

Her Position Statement for this Final Hearing says “Since X’s removal, she has demonstrated clear distress, attachment disruption, fear responses, unexplained bruising, regression, and repeated expressions of wanting to come home.” She describes the father's conduct as “escalating in hostility, coercive behaviour, and attempts to control contact”. She makes reference to “father grabbing X's arm on video contact, confirming how X sustained bruising” and “unexplained injuries repeatedly recorded in contact notes” and “X’s emotional dysregulation and distress after contact with father”.

This is fully consistent with the mother’s narrative throughout these proceedings. The mother’s description bears no relation to the reality as documented by the supervisors and social workers.

The contact notes demonstrate that on:

X has demonstrated a clear and strong attachment to her father. When she was removed from her mother’s care, even after hearing the mother’s warning that the father would harm her, X reassured her mother, willingly left with officers without a backward glance, and expressed the wish to buy a gift for her father and her excitement to see him.

X also clearly has a strong attachment to the mother. The contact notes describe X enjoying her mother’s company, expressing love and affection for her, and even making a request to return home with her.

The NYAS Caseworker confirms that X has a loving, reactive and responsive relationship with both of her parents and is now able to express what she does and does not want.

X would in my view wish to have both of her parents in her life, and she would wish her parents to work together in a constructive, respectful and collaborative manner with each other in her best interests.

This is something that the father has sought to do. He has worked hard to ensure that the mother is kept fully informed of X’s activities at nursery, and he has fully co-operated with the contact arrangements, including the telephone contact which has been very challenging for him and his family. He is committed to ensuring that X has access to every relationship which is beneficial and positive for her.

The mother conversely continues to discredit the father and is unable to move beyond her unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations of domestic abuse. She has sought to undermine the father’s parenting of X and maintains that were she to have X living with her she would only allow him to have contact with her on a supervised basis after he had admitted being a perpetrator of domestic abuse and after he had undergone an appropriate course.

The father has met X’s physical needs. He has ensured that her Red Book has been fully completed and under his care she has been issued with prescription glasses recommended by an NHS Ophthalmologist.

The father has given X a stable, secure and loving home. She has been described as thriving in his care. It is clear that he loves her very deeply and that he prioritises her need to have a relationship with her mother notwithstanding the difficulties and distress for him and his family that this entails.

The father has enrolled X at a pre-school where she is happy and settled. She greatly enjoys this and so he has arranged for her to attend 5 days each week. X will start school in September.

There have been many announced and unannounced visits to the father’s home whilst X has been subject to an ICO and no concerns of any nature have arisen.

There have been concerns for X’s physical wellbeing in her mother’s care arising from the mother’s cannabis use and also from the evidence of the mother failing to meet X’s basic needs for food and hygiene at the only unannounced visit which occurred when X was in her care. The mother’s mental health, dysregulation and volatility have been noted by various professionals during their involvement with her, and the self reports made by the mother in her own messages set out above give cause for concern. As mentioned, the mother continues to use street cannabis of unknown strength and formulation in the knowledge that this carries additional risks for people who have suffered from psychosis (as she has). The mother has refused all offers of professional support and there is no evidence to suggest that she will receive appropriate support in the near future, still less that she will be compliant with it if abstinence is a requirement.

There are also concerns for X’s emotional wellbeing in the mother’s care. The mother has to date been unable to prioritise X’s needs and best interests over her own needs and wants. There are multiple examples of this which I have set out above. They include telling her that her father would harm her; fleeing with X to London in the early hours of the morning and trying to abscond with her; moving home 18 times in 12 months on the basis that this was necessary to flee from unsubstantiated domestic abuse; continuing to undermine the father’s parenting by the making of malign reports and allegations.

Although the mother said that X was attending pre-school when in her care she was not willing to provide details of this so that it could be assessed and verified by the SW. Ultimately the mother disclosed that X was attending an informal group. The mother has moved home multiple times, her living arrangements have been unstable, and she did not make stable, secure and consistent arrangements to enable X to gain a pre-school education whilst she was in her care. It also appears that the mother does not support X attending pre-school 5 days each week and so the gains that X has made in this setting are vulnerable to being diminished or lost.

X has had a great deal of change in her young life. She has lived with the insecurities of her mother’s lifestyle and in her mother’s care suffered from having her relationship with her father disrupted for lengthy periods of time on a repeated basis. She has also experienced a strong, stable and secure home with her father who supports her to have and enjoy a safe and consistent relationship with her mother.

X is said to be thriving in her father’s care and her welfare needs are met by this continuing.

X is a 3 year old girl who has a mixed British/Australian heritage and it is important that she grows up with an awareness and understanding of this.

X has lived with the intrusion of professional involvement in her life as a result of these proceedings for most of her life, which does not represent a normal childhood and would benefit greatly from these proceedings ending and from a period of respite and security against further applications.

X has suffered emotional harm in the care of her mother who has without justification caused her relationship with her father to be disrupted. This would be repeated if X were in her mother’s care.

X is at risk of being abducted by her mother who has attempted to abscond and unlawfully leave the country with her which places her at risk of physical and emotional harm.

X is at risk of being exposed to the mother’s extreme, negative and untrue narrative against the father and of being subjected to alienating behaviours by the mother which is emotionally harmful.

X is at risk from the impacts of her mother’s behaviour which can at times be volatile, dysregulated and unpredictable by reason of her unaddressed mental health issues which place her at risk of physical and emotional harm.

X is at risk of physical and emotional harm and neglect by being exposed to her mother’s cannabis use. This arises both by reason of being directly exposed to street cannabis which the mother has failed to store securely and due to her exposure to the mother whilst she is under the influence. This is exacerbated in the case of the mother who is continuing to choose to take street cannabis against the background of her own personal and familial history of psychosis. When X was recovered from her mother’s care she presented in a state and condition indicative of neglect.

The father has been assessed by the Local Authority over the past 5 months whilst she has been a Looked After Child placed in his care. He has received regular announced and unannounced visits. He has ensured that X’s health, educational and emotional needs are met. He has been assessed as providing a high level of care and X has been described as thriving.

For all the reasons set out more fully above, the LA, NYAS and the father have expressed serious concerns about the mother’s parenting capacity. The LA have worked hard to provide various programmes, therapies and courses to support the mother to address her drug use, mental health needs and to develop her parenting capacity for X but the mother has declined all offers and does not appear to be taking any independent steps either.

Against the background of the evidence and findings that I have made in this case which are set out above, in considering the appropriate Order to make for XI have undertaken a risk assessment as follows:

I have considered the harm that X has been subjected to by her mother, and the risk of harm that the mother continues to present to her and I have found that the risk of the mother abducting X is high; that she is likely to denigrate the father because of her unshakeable belief that he presents a serious risk to X; that by reason of her mental health conditions and drug use the mother presents a risk of physical and emotional harm to Xand that she would try to prove that X is being abused, unwell or badly cared for by the father.

I have considered how that harm is likely to arise, and the consequences for Xif it did and I have found that the harm is likely to arise during unsupervised contact and that the consequences for X would be that she would suffer physical and emotional harm

Finally I have considered how those identified risks can be reduced or managed and I conclude that the only adequate protection is by long term supervised contact.

Taking all of the above into account, and having regard to the range of powers available to the Court I am satisfied that X’s welfare can only be safeguarded by a Final Lives with Order being made in favour of the father with an order for supervised contact for the mother.

In my judgment this is a case in which until the mother is able to accept appropriate therapy to regulate her behaviour in X’s interests the only appropriate choice available to the Court to safeguard X is that between supervised contact or indirect contact via letters and cards.

I have given careful consideration to the contact notes and consider that as long as close and protective supervision is implemented throughout X’s time with her mother that this is in X’s best interests.

I am of course mindful that supervised contact is normally a short-term measure and a stepping stone on the way to unsupervised contact. I have had regard to the authorities of Re D (Children)[2016] EWCA Civ 89, and S (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 689 and am satisfied that the risks posed to X by the mother are such that this case falls within the minority of cases in which the identified risks are such that contact must remain supervised indefinitely.

NYAS have applied for a s91.14 ChA 1989 Order to be made. Such an Order is a protective filter only. It does not bar applications by the mother but requires that before any application made by her can proceed the permission of the Court must be granted.

I have had regard to s91A of the ChA, PD12Q and the President’s Guidance issued in July 2022.

The Court has discretion to determine the circumstances in which an order would be appropriate. The welfare of the child is paramount and the Order can be used in circumstances in which “a period of respite is needed following litigation: where a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other person” PD 12Q para 2.3.

X has been at the centre of litigation between her parents for 3 years, since she was 6 months old. During that time she has been subjected to having to meet many professionals who have assessed her and her parents, starting with Cafcass who prepared a s7 report at an early stage of these proceedings and subsequently by the LA and NYAS who have carried out many visits and assessments.

The mother has issued a number of Appeals to date to both the Circuit Bench and the High Court. The evidence of the professionals is that it is just a matter of time before the mother returns this matter to Court and it appears to me to be likely that she will issue further applications for orders under s8 ChA 1989 unless restrained from doing so. Were this to happen this would be likely to cause emotional harm to X because the stability of her life in her father’s home would be unsettled and put at risk. Respite is clearly needed by X, her father and his extended family.

In my judgment a s91.14 Order is proportionate to address the high propensity of the mother to engage in highly litigious and oppositional conduct against the father and all professionals involved with X which has included repeated complaints against professionals who do not share the mother’s view, and repeated applications and appeals. The advice that the Court has received has been unanimous and clear. The mother poses a high risk of harm to X and will continue to do so until she undertakes therapy to address her mental health needs and drug use.

Time is now needed to allow the mother to take the steps that she needs to take in order to engage with therapy to

address her drug use and

the mental health issues that she suffers

the negative narrative that she has in relation to the father that he presents a risk of harm to the mother and X which puts X at risk of being subjected to alienating behaviours from her mother

The mother also has an application for relocation to Australia before the Court which I must also address.

In all the circumstances of this case which I have set out above, and against the background of the findings that I have made, it is clearly the case that the only order open to the Court in all the circumstances is to dismiss it. It is however necessary for me to record some further observations in relation to the evidence that is before the Court.

The mother’s own account of her life in Australia is somewhat concerning. Her text messages include the following entries - she had “never had a healthy relationship with my mum or my grandparents” and “what happened when I was a kid really messed me up” and that her mother “leaves them on their own most of the time, I moved out bc mum got very physical with me. Bringing guys over and having sex. Angry, abusive, screams at the kids. Very impulsive. Denys it all”. In October 2022 she said that she had had to report her mother to child services that week for child abuse, and she made reference to her mother beating her four younger siblings “walloping them with wooden spoons”and that they planned to leave her care to live with a former partner who was the father of two of them. She said “my crazy grandma manhandled my little sister the other day”.

The mother has declined the suggestions made by the LA for her family to take part in a Family Group Conference.

Finally it should be said that the mother has not submitted any evidence in support of her application. The Court has not been provided with any proposals for the proposed relocation, and neither the father nor NYAS have had any opportunity to consider any plan that she wishes to advance. The mother has not provided the Court with any information about where or with whom X would live and how she would make appropriate arrangements for X’s support and education. She has maintained her stance that the only basis on which she would agree to X spending time with the father would be under professional supervision after he admitted that he is the perpetrator of domestic abuse, undertook a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Programme.

The Child Arrangement Orders that I make are:

Finally, the father has made an application that his costs of the hearings on 2^nd May 2025, 6^th June 2025 and 26^th June 2025 are paid by the mother. At each of those hearings the costs were reserved.

The hearing on 2^nd May 2025 took place before Recorder Clapham. Both of the parents were represented by Counsel. At that hearing the mother attended remotely despite being ordered to attend in person; she had not complied with the Order for a psychiatric assessment and that Order was repeated; she had not complied with the Order for interim contact, and a s37 Assessment was ordered by reason of concerns about Xin her mother’s care.

The hearing on 6^th June 2025 took place before me. The father was legally represented by Solicitors and Counsel attended on his behalf. Again the mother did not attend in person. She had failed to comply with the Court’s Order in relation to the filing of witness statements, and filed on the day of the hearing together with a number of applications. The entirety of the first day was lost because of this. The mother misled the Court about her attendance on day 2 of the hearing.

The mother did not attend the hearing on 26^th June 2025 which again took place before me. At that hearing it was recorded that the mother had frustrated the LA in carrying out its s37 assessment and was obstructing and refusing to allow X to spend time with the father.

As appears above the mother has repeatedly breached Court Orders in refusing to allow X to spend time with her father; in failing to attend appointments arranged for her to undergo a psychiatric appointment (notwithstanding that she had consented to this) and in relation to the filing of witness statements. The mother’s intransigence resulted in an Order being made for X to become a party to the proceedings and represented by NYAS. The proceedings have been greatly protracted and have been made far more complex and lengthy because of the mother’s litigation conduct the focus of which has been the wholly unsubstantiated and groundless allegations that the father is a perpetrator of domestic abuse. At no point has the mother produced evidence to substantiate her allegations notwithstanding that the litigation has been on-going for 3 years. Further, a great deal of Court time has been lost in dealing with her late applications.

The father has spent £86,000 on legal costs and has spent all of the money that he has saved. He has taken on debt to fund the legal costs which he is now repaying.

The relevant costs provisions are set out FPR Part 28 and PD28A. The general principles are:

I have had regard to the fact that the mother was a litigant in person at the hearings on 6^th and 26^th June 2025. Litigants in person are not immune from costs orders being made against them. As per the comments in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR, 1119, UKSC, a litigant in person does not form a privileged class for whom the rules are modified or disapplied, and the litigant in person is expected to familiarise herself with the relevant procedure and take legal advice if necessary.

Having regard to the law and having regard to the litigation conduct of the mother throughout these proceedings. I am satisfied that the mother’s litigation has amounted to unreasonable and reprehensible conduct. She has obstructed contact between the father and X for no justifiable reason; she has made and persisted in making very serious allegations against the father which are unsubstantiated; she has throughout breached multiple court orders both in relation to case management directions and in relation to contact; she misled the Court in relation to her whereabouts on 5^th June; she has obstructed the Local Authority in the performance of its statutory duties concerning X and has failed to work with NYAS.

At the hearing on 2^nd May the father was legally represented. His costs are put at £17,182.50. summarily assess them at £15,000 and I order the mother to pay 60% of those costs.

At the hearing on 6^th June the father was legally represented. His costs are put at £20,063.81. I summarily assess them at £18,000 and order the mother to pay 80%.

At the hearing on 26^th June the father appeared as a litigant in person. It appears from the N260 that he has filed that he received legal advice and support from his solicitors in updating the bundle, preparing his position statement and the N260 and his costs claim is limited to that work only. He makes no claim for the time that he himself spent representing himself at that hearing, nor subsequently. The sum claimed is in the amount of £3,029.50. I summarily assess the costs at £2,500 and order the mother to pay 80% of that sum.

These costs shall be paid by the mother to the father within 28 days of my judgment being handed down.