CF v CM

This is the case of CF and CM. The parties are the parents of X a girl born in 2018 and now 7 years old.

This is a case where, most unusually, there have been two findings of fact hearings and, even more unusually, the decision made at those finding of facts has pointed in two different directions. In the first finding of fact, I found that CF had sexually assaulted X. In a second finding of fact, I found that he had not done so. The minutia of that process is set out in the two judgments I have prepared; the purpose of today is to take the process on from the second finding of fact and to consider the welfare decision now to be made in this long-running matter.

Since the decision that sexual abuse had not occurred, there have been two principal developments. Firstly, a guardian had been involved, and I have a final analysis dated 1 July 2025. Secondly, a psychological report and addendum to that report has been prepared dated 15 May 2025, and the addendum is based in the first week of July 2025. It is important for completeness that I record in this judgment the views of those two individuals.

Dr G is a forensic psychologist. Much of her working life has been spent working for the Prison Service, including at a high-security prison. She now works for herself in a consultancy.

In her report, she has provided what she describes as “formulations” of the key individuals. Her formulation of CM included the following paragraphs.

“In considering the recent relevant issues, I observed CM to present with a high level of anxiety. I note that she continues to believe her daughter’s allegations of sexual abuse made against CF and expressed reasonable concerns regarding the origins of this allegation and the sexual information contained therein which were expressed by such a young child. While these issues remain unexplained, I opine that it is unlikely that CM will be able to promote contact between her child and her father due to the perceived risks such contact could pose. More broadly, I felt that CM was lacking in insight regarding the importance of recognising CF as the child’s father to her identity and developing sense of self. I am concerned that her dismissive response to CF and eagerness to create a new self-contained family unit with her current partner as the child’s father will result in significant issues relating to the child’s identity and understanding of their life story in later life. I generally felt that CM demonstrated an avoidant coping style which likely fed into her response to this matter. I recommend that CM engage in therapeutic intervention relating to her anxiety in order to support her in reducing her exposure of the child to her anxieties.”

In her formulation of CF, she indicated at 7.9:

“I felt CF somehow struggled to empathise with the emotional experience of his ex-partner. I observed CF to demonstrate a stark lack of insight regarding the impact of his behaviour upon CM, largely minimising the betrayal she experienced in discovering his porn addiction when affection had been such a point of contention within their relationship.”

She further stated at 7.10:

“With regards to the recent issues, I observed CF to similarly lack insight regarding and minimise the significance of his historic self-disclosed porn addiction and the high level of sexual preoccupation and addiction that this magnitude would suggest, as demonstrated by the alleged debt accrued. This addiction appears to have resulted in financial damage, and CF engaged with pornography across context within both the home and employment despite the risks in both settings. This sexual preoccupation and limited inhibition, therefore, remain a significant concern, and I am not confident that CF will be able to abstain from pornography use or appropriately protect his child from such use should she spend time within his care without further treatment. Positively I noted that CF is more child focused in his acknowledgment that any contact with the child needed to be gradual and guided by the child. At the present time I would highly recommend that CF engage in intensive therapy regarding his pornography addiction and history of sexual preoccupation prior to the commencement of any direct contact. In the meantime, I advise that indirect letterbox contact proceed. Unfortunately, whilst the origins of X’s historic allegation remain unclear and her trauma remains unaddressed, I would advise professionals against forcing the issue of direct contact in order to minimise any potential harm or trauma.”

The psychological assessment also included the child. And in relation to X, the psychologist stated at 7.12:

“Within X’s assessment, I observed her to present as a highly anxious and troubled young girl. I am concerned to note that X has evidently been exposed to adult information and financial conflict between her parents. I observed X to demonstrate a high level of reluctance and embarrassment to discuss in any way the reasons for which she is currently not seeing her father. It was, however, positive to note that she appeared open to contact with her paternal grandmother. More generally, X appears to be a highly fearful child with a view of the world as a somewhat dangerous place. Overall, while I cannot comment upon or determine the origins of such trauma, in my assessment it is clear that X experienced significant trauma which will require sensitive specialised trauma informed intervention perhaps through the medium of play.”

The Guardian’s report highlights the length of time this matter has been in proceedings, now extending to some 138 weeks. She describes X in glowing terms. At paragraph 6 of her report, she describes X:

“X said school is going great. Her favourite thing is … She thinks she may want to be a … when she is older, and she has nice friends. I observed X to be cheerful and smiley. She engages well with me and appeared comfortable doing so.

X was spoken to by the Guardian. X said her home life was good, with nothing she wants to change. X said that CF sent her cards, and she felt happy when he sent her a bunny thing in a hat. CM reads the cards to her. When asked how she felt, she said “I don’t really bother.”

The Guardian was accepting of Dr G’s assessment that CF’s pornographic use was a concern. She quoted the paragraph I have already quoted about the sexual preoccupation and in a conclusion on the basis of that risk, she confirms her recommendations aligned with Dr ’s view.

In her professional judgment, she said:

“These proceedings have had the benefit of the court having made findings, and Dr G’s psychological assessment of X and her parents. Dr G’s recommendations are clear that CF and CM need to engage with therapy, and my position statement aligns with the recommendations Dr G has made. It is my view that intervention is needed for CF prior to any change in arrangements for X. It is unknown when the recommended therapy will commence and conclude, and what the outcome of success of the therapy is. This cannot be pre-empted. I consider this is needed prior to any further assessment around the arrangements for and X.”

Whilst therapy is undertaken, it is her view that it was essential that X maintains her relationship with CF via the indirect arrangements, and this needs to be both positive and meaningful. Not only do the indirect arrangements maintain a relationship between her and assist developing X’s sense of identity, but it ensures some groundwork is done so that if direct time is to occur in the future, X is likely to feel more comfortable to commence this.

Her strong view at paragraph 24 is:

“Court proceedings and professional intervention cause children instability, confusion and worry, and therefore it is particularly concerning that X have now been in proceedings for 135 weeks. This is a significant quantity of time in her short lives, and she now needs time away from the proceedings to enjoy her life as a young child. To reduce further detrimental impact on her, I recommend a final order is made at the earliest opportunity.”

Her recommendations are clear:

“CF should engage in therapeutic intervention; CM should engage in therapeutic intervention; X should be offered therapeutic intervention; and if CF wishes to pursue direct arrangements, then he should return the matter for a new assessment and review after the successful completion of the recommended therapy, and this concluding that further assessment and possible progression of arrangements is considered safe.”

So how do I approach this issue? The position of the parties, in the briefest summary, is this.

CM appeared under cross-examination to accept that the endpoint of CF seeing the children was one that may well be the right one; but her view was X was a child that had gone through very considerable turmoil, and that before any decision was made to move forward the work had to be done by CF, it had to be done supported by an appropriately qualified expert, and then there had to be an assessment as to whether the work had been successful. Equally important, in her view, was that the wishes of the child should be taken into account. Her view was that X is stable and happy and therefore to move her from that had risk, and in essence she wondered whether that risk was justified. She approached her cross-examination of both Dr G and the Guardian on the basis that their assessment of how quickly a proper view could be taken as to how matters could progress was too rapid, and she wanted very careful steps to be taken.

Ms Bull suggests that the work does need to be done, but indicates that whilst the work is done, there should be no reason why some form of direct contact could not be established with CF which would then allow an easier transition to direct contact of a more relaxed nature once the therapeutic work had been completed. Her assessment was if the view was taken that the therapeutic work with CF would take six months (which is the best evidence I have, being provided by Dr G), then that could start promptly perhaps in a couple of weeks’ time and then that could be assessed promptly at the end of the process, and so within a matter of seven months perhaps there should be an ability to progress to more relaxed direct contact outside, as I understand it, of the contact centre. She indicated there are real risks in this case in not making progress, including the child being subject to a false narrative that CF has sexually abused X; and the more entrenched and ingrained that narrative becomes, the less likely it is that contact will ever be able to progress. She highlighted certain factors in terms of CM’s conduct where it is clear that discussions of what has happened and what is believed to have happened are commonplace within the household.

The view of the guardian was that the expert has a clear progression; that progression leads to the conclusion that is appropriate in this case; and because it is impossible to understand the effect and efficacy of the therapy and counselling, it would be entirely inappropriate to make an order predicated on that succeeding. Her view was that it was for CF to do the work, X to do her work, CM to do the work, and for matters to be reviewed at a later point. There is a very strong indication from the guardian that remaining in proceedings is not in X’s best interests.

What I am going to do in determining this matter is start with Section 1 of the Children Act:

“(1)

When a court determines any question with respect to‒

(a)

the upbringing of a child…

the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

This is not about pleasing parents. It is not about logical progression. It is about what is in the child’s welfare interest.

“(2)

In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of a child.”

(2A)

A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.”

These section provide the key basic principles.

My starting point is the welfare of the child, and that is my paramount consideration. I must avoid delay, because delay in general circumstances is injurious to the welfare of children and I should, unless it is demonstrated to me that it is not safe to do so, work on the presumption that the involvement of both parents in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare.

I then move on to the checklist:

“(3)

In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4), a court should have regard in particular to‒

(a)

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

(b)

his physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c)

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

(d)

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

(e)

any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f)

how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

(g)

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

Sometimes the factors in the checklist have similar values, and you can work them through, and they point in different directions, and an overall assessment is made. In this case where I have a psychologist telling me there is a risk to a child, in my assessment the risk of harm factor becomes a magnetic one. It becomes the one which it is the responsibility of the court to wrestle with before it moves on to other matters. In making this assessment I am assisted by the case of Re M and R (Child Abuse: Evidence)[1996] 4 All ER 239, where the Court of Appeal set out how the court should consider harm and risk of harm:

“If there is a dispute as to whether the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering harm, the task of the judge, when considering whether to make any order, whether it be a care or supervision order under section 31 or a section 8 order, must be to resolve that dispute. Unless this is done, it will remain in doubt whether or not the child has suffered harm or is at risk of suffering harm, and thus it will remain in doubt whether or not there exist factors which Parliament expressly considered to be of particular importance to be taken into account. The question is how such a dispute is to be resolved.

To our minds, there can be only one answer to this question, namely the same answer as that given by the majority in Re H and R. The court must reach a conclusion based on facts, not on suspicion or mere doubts. If, as in the present case, the court concludes that the evidence is insufficient to prove sexual abuse in the past, and if the fact of sexual abuse in the past is the only basis for asserting a risk of sexual abuse in the future, then it follows that there is nothing (except suspicion or mere doubts) to show a risk of future sexual abuse.

…the court can only have regard to any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that such harm or risk of harm in fact exists. In our view, risk of harm means the real possibility of future harm. Lord Nicholls said in Re H at 5918:

‘It is, of course, open to a court to conclude there is a real possibility that the child will suffer harm in the future although harm in the past has not been established. There will be cases where, although the alleged maltreatment itself is not proved, the evidence does establish a combination of profoundly worrying features affecting the care of the child within the family. In such cases it would be open to a court in appropriate circumstances to find that, although not satisfied the child is yet suffering significant harm, on the basis of such facts as are proved there is a likelihood that he will do so in the future.’

That passage sets out, in our view, the correct approach to the question how to assess any harm the child is at risk of suffering in section 1(3)(e) of the welfare test.”

Let us look what the experts have told me. Dr G, under cross-examination, stated: “I am not concerned about a sexual abuse of a child. This is no longer a case about the risk of sexual abuse.” She then continued to say: “I would be concerned that until someone assesses him, you cannot be confident that the area is fully managed. It could be a risk”, and she than when asked to define the risk she said, “Impulsivity and sexual information around the house.” As such Dr G very clearly moved the assessment of risk on from a risk of sexual abuse, and of course that is right, because the evidence following that case does not support a risk of sexual abuse. There is no risk of sexual abuse for CF. But what there is a risk that he will behave impulsively and separately to that that he will leave information about the house because he has got an interest in pornography which has gone to an unhealthy level. That is her identification of what I name the first and second risks.

There is another very clear risk that she again indicated under cross-examination: the risk that the child is brought up with incorrect beliefs as to what has happened in the past. And that is the third risk that I identify.

The fourth risk to the child is a delay being built into the system which means she is never able to reestablish a relationship with her father, and Dr G is very clear as to her sense of identity requiring that relationship to be better understood and to develop.

The fifth risk is that mother has such an entrenched view as to the truth of what happened in the past that that can be an ongoing narrative, which would feed into the child and continue to create anxiety and conflict in her mind about what has happened.

I discern those are the five risks and as I follow the guidance given M and R, that it is my responsibility to look at those five risks and wrestle with them.

I have a psychologist who understands how poor behaviour of a sexual nature creates a risk, and she has told me that an unhealthy interest in pornography can be such that it impinges on daily life and thus becomes a risk. I accept that. Ms Bull suggested that as CF had reduced to using pornography once every two weeks and not being preoccupied with it daily somehow removes that risk. I do not agree with that assessment. If you are addicted to heroin and you stop using heroin daily and you use it every two weeks, you still have the propensity of being a heroin addict. If you have been addicted to pornography and you still use pornography every couple of weeks, it is my assessment that you are likely to remain a pornography addict, and that is likely to have harmful consequences unless you do something about it.

In relation to the impulsivity, we have seen CF acting in impulsive ways. The issue which led to the cessation of contact back in September 2023 was him taking the child at night to meet a woman he had met on the internet to spend the night with her. That was an impulsive act which created at least emotional risk to the child. The act of him sending a picture of his erect penis to another woman he was engaged in a chatroom with whilst at work was an act of impulsivity which created risks. My assessment is until he does some engaged work on that facet of his behaviour, it is very difficult to normalise the relationship with his child. The guardian accepts that assessment.

In terms of the delay, I am very worried about the delay. This child could end up going through life not believing she has an important father who has, in my assessment, never harmed her. It is important that that does not become an entrenched belief system. This is connected to the two other risk factors: a risk of CM continuing to believe that abuse has happened and therefore consciously or unconsciously supporting that narrative; and, second, the child having a false belief system; it is my assessment of that risk that that needs to be dealt with.

We thus have five identifiable risks that we need to deal with. The view of the psychologist and of the child’s guardian is that until the risks of the father’s behaviour pattern is resolved, it is difficult to move forward. Until the risks of the child believing something has happened when it has not is resolved, it is difficult to move forward. Until CM accepts that there has been a misinterpretation of the past and can move forward with reduced anxiety, it is difficult to move forward. Until we solve those problems, we are wasting our time. We need to solve those problems. The key to this case is a sequencing of how we deal with matters.

I do not feel qualified to overlay my assessment of sequencing above that of the psychologist. The psychologist said it would be better for him to do the work, be assessed, and then he can move forward. I do not think anyone argues that the prospect of contact between father and child succeeding is extremely unlikely to work until the child have done their work. So again, it is a sequencing point.

The guardian comes from a slightly different perspective. She says there is a danger that we will set ourselves down a course of action - in this case by ordering contact centre contact - where the outcome of therapy is not known either in relation to the child or in relation to CF; and therefore, starting the child down a route they may have to pull out of is not something she can recommend in their best interests. She would regard that as harmful.

I am persuaded by the assessment of Dr G and by the assessment of the guardian that a cautious approach is the one most likely to lead to the outcome which I want to see, being that the father sees his child in a safe setting. I can see little merit in accelerating a process where the outcome is unknown.

In terms of the order I make, I am going to continue indirect contact during such time as the father does his therapy, the child does her therapy, and the mother does her therapy. The question then arises: do I do that within the currency of proceedings or not? The National Family Justice Council, setting out their priority for the entirety of the Family Justice System in December 2024, said their priority for the next year is that no family private law case should have a duration of longer than 100 weeks. If I were to allow this case to continue, we would be coming back at close to the 200-week point. In my finding that is unacceptable. The view of the President of the Family Division, in repeated speeches to professionals, including recently in Jersey, emphasised this need to get a grip with the inordinate delays in private family justice.

I simply do not accept that it is appropriate for me to adjourn a case further with that duration supporting this is the view of the guardian that it is essential there is a break now.

I then work out how am I going to manage this situation. The situation I want to happen is I want father to do the work. I disagree with Dr G slightly in that I believe the best way forward to understand whether father has succeeded in the work is to have a report from the person who does the work with him. I think 26 weeks of at least an hour will give that person a greater degree of knowledge than somebody meeting him for an hour in a conversation. As such we have a clear road map: father does the work, father shares the report from that person with mother, and then we reassess.

I do not need to make an order for father to do the therapy. That is a recital. It is an expectation, and I would hope he will do it. If he does not do it, any future case would have no prospect of success.

In terms of X, I have agonised how I make this happen for the child, and I have determined that the best mechanism is via a specific issue order. I can make a specific issue order that the child engages in therapy, just as I can make a specific issue order that the child goes to a particular school or have a particular medical treatment. That is a very skilled piece of work. I do not know how long it is going to take. But it seems to me that is likely to fall within a six-month period. I thus make a specific issue order that the mother supports X engaging in therapy with an appropriately trained child psychologist and that psychologist produces a report for the benefit of both parents. I think mother needs to be involved in the choice of that psychologist for it needs to be someone she has confidence in.

In terms of mother doing the therapy, I am not sure I can order mother to do therapy. I have not found a mechanism to do that. But what I would say to mother is “Please, the endpoint we want is your child to be happy, secure and loved, and I think you probably need to do some work to get to that point.”

I will add to the order a recital to state: “The judge envisages a situation in 12 months’ time where (a) the father has done the therapy as recommended by Dr G; (b) the child has undergone therapy as recommended by Dr G; (c) the mother has done the therapy as envisaged by Dr G; and (d) evidence has been provided by all three of those professionals that the work has been undertaken, understood and been successful. In those circumstances, the judge can see no reason at all why contact centre contact with notetakers could not start very shortly after the end of that therapeutic process.”