A v B

These proceedings concern the parties’ son C. The matter was listed for final hearing. It was listed for a day and a half and this is the half day after we heard, principally, almost a full day of questioning of the Cafcass officer,

The applicant father is A; the respondent mother is B. I refer to both parents throughout this judgment as “the Father” and “the Mother” which is not something I greatly like but it is a convenient shorthand and certainly no disrespect is intended to either parent.

The issues before the court concern: where the child should live; whether there should be direct or indirect contact between the Father and child; and a range of other more peripheral issues concerning the extent to which the Father should be consulted about change of school or merely notified. Additional issues concern whether the court should make a non-molestation order of its own volition in tandem with the existing three year restraining order, pursuant to the Prevention from Harassment Act made by the Crown Court, as I understand it, of its own initiative; and whether the prohibited steps order concerning foreign travel for mum and child can be discharged. Further the need for an order pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act and a discrete issue concerning NHS recommended vaccinations. I will come back to all of those issues at the end.

It is the Father’s case that he poses no safeguarding risk to the child or the Mother and that there should be stepped progress, firstly to direct unsupervised contact and ultimately to a shared care arrangement. It is the Mother’s case that the Father represents a significant safeguarding risk both to herself and, by extension, the child; in this regard she relies upon

At a final hearing I was pleased to note that both parties had instructed experienced and able counsel (the Father on a Direct Access basis), both of whom provided very great assistance to the court, in terms of skeleton arguments provided in advance of the hearing and in their submissions. I am grateful to both. I have also been assisted by a well-prepared electronic bundle, and again, I am grateful for that.

In terms of oral evidence, on the basis that there was an extensive fact find hearing last year conducted by Judge Parkes, the court did not need to hear any oral evidence from either party; oral evidence was thus restricted to the family court adviser, to which I shall return shortly. I have given very careful consideration to her very thorough and comprehensive section 7 report dated 27 November 2024 and a very recent addendum dated 4 September 2025. The hearing otherwise proceeded on the basis of submissions from counsel.

As to documentary evidence, I have read everything to which I have been referred, notably the parties’ witness statements, naturally with a particular focus on the most recent statements; I have also reviewed any authorities to which I have been referred and have in mind throughout practice direction 12J. There were some preliminary issues to be resolved, given the overarching import in this case of the court’s findings of domestic abuse, it is again

Similarly, the Father has raised a number of issues about the family court adviser of which more shortly and her conduct of the case; he has filed an application for an order that, in effect, a second opinion be obtained from an independent social worker. This would again require a prior application to adjourn this hearing and I was advised that as he is keen to progress the matter, no such application is pursued “at the moment”.

In terms of the fact find hearing, a particularly important feature of the case is that Judge Parkes made a significant number of adverse findings against the Father as set out in the schedule referred to. The Father raised one serious cross-allegation as to the Mother’s involvement with an organisation. The court made, and I quote from the schedule itself “no finding” that she had ongoing involvement nor, paraphrasing, that the child had been exposed to their teachings.

As to findings against the Father, I do not propose to rehearse these in full as a document is on the court record and speaks for itself but I consider the following to be the most serious and concerning of the facts found.

These were found to be proven in part and a number of incidents were proven to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, and these dated from around February 2020 to April 2022, over two years therefore of abuse of this form. In particular allegation G was proven and related to assault of the Mother and I rehearse this because I considered to be the most concerning of a range of very concerning incidents, he called the Mother of the child “fucking scum” he blocked her from leaving and pushed her onto the sofa; particularly, disturbingly, he pinned her arms behind her back, all whilst the child was in her care. I am

There was a finding of coercive and controlling conduct including stalking and

Some of the proven incidents took place in front of the child, including shouting and verbal abuse. Importantly it was also found that the Father was at least a habitual cocaine user which naturally impacted upon his behaviour. It is of very great significance in the context of the case that the Father has, from the outset, vigorously and vociferously challenged, effectively, all of these findings and indicated an intention to apply for permission to appeal; in the event no transcript could be obtained, the tape had been corrupted somehow and the Father has not, in the event, pursued an appeal.

It was said on his behalf that he accepts that findings were made. An important distinction, however, is that he does not accept any of the actual findings themselves. In his written evidence he goes no further than to state at paragraph 2 of his most recent statement:

“The Father accepts a limited number of the Mother’s claims, explaining his actions were driven by desperation after repeated failed attempts to resolve matters amicably.”

When asked directly his counsel confirmed that his admission, such as it is, relates solely to the period after the couple had separated and makes no admission whatever as to his conduct during the relationship itself. It is particularly stark and a magnetic aspect of the case to which I shall, of course, return. He expands the point to state his position that, in fact, he had been honest in the fact find hearing but that the Mother had not. He states, in terms, that the judge found that the Mother had lied about some allegations, well, no such finding is recorded in the schedule of findings.

I turn now to my case analysis overall. I begin with some general observations and then deal with the issues and evidence as they arose during the course of the hearing. Firstly I think at the outset it would be helpful to make some general observations regarding the Father. Firstly I remind myself in a summary form that this court has found him to be physically, verbally, psychologically and emotionally abusive. Some of the abuse that the Mother was subjected to was committed either in the child’s presence or in circumstances where he would have observed and sensed the aftermath, the effects of violence, the ranting of abuse and threats. He was found to be coercive and controlling and capable of harassment and stalking; he has made direct and explicit threats to abduct the child, to be abusive and

The next observation is to emphasise quite the extent to which the Father denied and continues to deny any real responsibility for his proven actions. This is a fundamental aspect

Next we turn to his stance with regards to the evidence of the family court adviser,. I shall begin by commenting that I found the family court adviser to be an impressive witness; her reports in the form of the section 7 report and her very recent addendum are

The Father’s response to this, of course, as with the fact find judgment, was to assert that her analysis and recommendations are wrong; he has made a number of complaints about her to both her manager and more senior management; he has impugned her professional reputation; he has made enquiries of Cafcass as to her complaints record in order to try to undermine her credibility. I remind myself here that the family court adviser is an independent family court adviser of long standing. It is deeply unfortunate but of a piece that the Father, because he does not like her professional opinion, seeks to attack her personally. Whilst clearly based upon instructions it was surprising to say the least that the Father’s cross-examination of

In addition the Father has demonstrated a propensity to conduct research and investigation into any individual involved in the case. The reality of his stance is that rather than trying to promote any positive aspects of his involvement or to persuade the court that the child would be safe in his care and that the Mother has nothing to be concerned about from him, instead he looks for ways to undermine the Mother and her parenting. It is to her credit that he struggles to do so but it is for this reason I find that he clings to, and I consider is rather fixated upon the Mother’s prior involvement with an organisation. At the outset it was historically of some concern that the Mother did appear to be an active member. I remind myself here again, however, that the judge at the fact find hearing found that there was no finding that the Mother has an ongoing involvement, nor that the child has been exposed to the organisation or its teachings, such as they are. She offered, and the court accepted a formal undertaking that she would not expose the child to the organisation.

He scrutinises her website; he applies analytical tools to these to identify changes over time in order to bolster his position; he strays into conspiracy the organisation in seeking to establish links between professionals in the case and the organisation, notably even the Mother’s solicitors. It is unclear on what possible basis he considers that this will assist him and I find these attempts to be irrational. All of this, of course, is a flawed attempt to distract from the findings as to his own conduct, to muddy the waters and that there are apparently,

Most disturbingly of all and this is, of course, very recent indeed, was the lodging of a C2 application which he forwarded to the family court adviser under the subject line Child At Significant Risk Of Harm This Weekend because, he thought and then identified, that the Mother was taking the child to a festival, one which he had, apparently, himself attended previously. In the event I am told that the Mother did not go but what is clear from this is that the Father continues to monitor the Mother on social media, even now. He continues to hunt for evidence of clandestine involvement of the organisation. This is a form of ongoing attempt to control the Mother and I find, based upon his own accounts, that this constitutes a form of ongoing emotional or psychological abuse of the Mother. He has bombarded Cafcass and other organisations with lengthy emails seeking to establish the ongoing link and making baseless allegations that the Mother has breached her undertaking.

He has demonstrated further propensity to behave in a stalking manner by making

Regrettably he has not turned such investigatory scrutiny upon himself. He refuses to accept the validity of any of the extremely serious factual findings against him. He seeks rather obsessively to link the Mother and her solicitors to the organisation, Rather than confronting the findings of the family court adviser he seeks instead to make complaints about her to undermine her professionally. I also note that when he was being investigated by the police, his response to that was to make a complaint about the police.

He demonstrates in all of his lengthy writings, which I have perused, not a single iota or self-awareness, self-analysis, self-criticism, despite having had effectively no direct contact with the child for around two years; and after very significant findings of abusive conduct he presents an entirely unrealistic position that the court should be working towards shared care when the evidence before the court is that he has never played an active role in caring for or parenting the child, despite there also being clear evidence that the Mother has, historically, actively encouraged him to be involved in the child’s life.

It is a fundamental aspect of the case, in particular, that the Father appears to have absolutely no understanding of or insight into the impact on the Mother and, by extension, the child of his proven conduct. It is striking that he also does not give any impression that he is prepared to even give this any meaningful thought. He is, as a matter of proven fact, a deeply and routinely abusive man and he continues to attempt to perpetuate forms of control with stalking tendencies to this day. He does not demonstrate any real child focus or broader understanding that his historical and indeed current behaviour is harmful to his child. Not only is he unable or unwilling to accept any culpability for anything; he is not prepared to even countenance taking any real steps to modify his behaviour. I was told with some enthusiasm that he is willing to sign up to parenting courses. He has completed a four-hour, I think, some form of anger management course, although it was not entirely clear but it matters not; this is a four-hour online course to be completed in a morning, it is not any form of in depth consideration or self-reflection.

His latest drug testing indicates that he has abstained from cocaine since February. That is commendable but, of course, these proceedings have been ongoing for some years. The fact find concluded over a year ago. He now suggests a willingness to undertake various courses to address conduct that he refuses to admit, which would entirely undermine the point and its effectiveness. It is also worthy of note that these were steps that have been open to him for a very long time. It may be considered that he would have done better to conduct better research into appropriate courses that would help him rather than investigating third parties for links with the organisation.

He seeks to persuade the court that he prevents no safeguarding risk to the child but singularly failed to take the necessary steps that would support his position in this regard. He could and should have identified and completed a course for domestic abusers. It is recorded in Judge Parkes’ fact find order that he is recommended to undertake anger management training, not a cursory four hour online course. He was found to be a habitual cocaine user, again, it is commendable that he has managed to abstain seemingly for over six months now but, of course, one cannot simply turn off a cocaine dependency. If he had shown any sign of engaging with counselling or in a support group, for example, I would feel a little more reassured that he is serious about permanently giving up, although he may well face a lifelong battle with such dependency; but of course he has done absolutely nothing. He does not consider that he needs any support or assistance which perhaps makes him unique; and thus he is at particular risk of relapsing if he does not recognise the extent of his problem. He may well also resume his previous intake once he feels that he is no longer being scrutinised by Cafcass and the court.

He admits to remaining a habitual cannabis user. It is particularly noteworthy and

I shall refer now to a few other examples of the Father’s lack of self-awareness and how he presented himself in this case. Through his counsel he sought to criticise the family court adviser for meeting with the Mother but not him; but as he knew well he was, in fact, offered a personal appointment but declined, preferring to engage in multiple lengthy emails. He makes unwarranted complaints about the family court adviser and then seeks to persuade the court that she is biased against him because of those complaints which, of course, is rather circular.

Much is made of the visit to the Father on the Christmas Eve of 2024 in that this is supposed to demonstrate that direct contact managed by the parents is safe. I accept the entirely persuasive account and opinion of the family court adviser that it demonstrates nothing of the kind; it is tolerably clear that under emotional pressure from the paternal grandmother and the Father’s partner, the Mother rather ill-advisedly allowed a very brief visit to the Father for a matter of minutes. This was a risk, given the history of abuse, that she should not have taken and I accept that she immediately regretted it. I am not persuaded that this supports a contention that direct contact going forwards is safe.

The family court adviser, after repeated questioning refused to shift her position that whilst there is a strong presumption in statute for it to be in the best interests of a child to have meaningful contact with both parents, that presumption is rebutted if such contact cannot be made safe for the child and the other parent. She maintains her position that it is not safe and it cannot be made safe given the court’s findings and her own observations of the parties. She was equally steadfast that even supervised contact is not safe for the child because the Father demonstrates at every opportunity that he doggedly persists with attempts to establish ongoing links between the Mother and the organisation. I find it more likely than not

I turn now to the welfare checklist and apply this to my case analysis. The starting point is, of course, that the child’s welfare should be the court’s paramount consideration. Secondly a court, with respect to each parent, is 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. Involvement, however, means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect but not any particular division of a child’s time. A court shall have regard to the welfare checklist.

Briefly, the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned. It is agreed that given the child’s age and particularly in light of emerging neurodiversity it is difficult to determine and would carry little weight in any event, he is simply too young and, of course, save for a fleeting visit, he has had no direct contact with his father for some years. His experience of his father prior to that has been found to be that of a deeply abusive man causing emotional, not to say physical harm to the Mother and by extension emotional harm to the child.

Physical, emotional and educational needs. Well, these are comprehensively and ably met by the Mother with whom the child lives. The family court adviser reports a warm and loving relationship and I have no doubt that the child is safe and thriving in her care. Conversely, there is no evidence before the court that the Father has ever provided a consistent and child-focused parenting role. He stated in terms in places that he makes no criticism of the Mother’s parenting but, in reality, does so repeatedly and rather obsessively at every opportunity.

The likely effect on the child of any change in his circumstances, well, I will return to this but I find that there is a very grave risk of emotional and psychological harm to both the Mother and child if direct contact is allowed. The Father’s underlying case is that the parties should be moving towards shared care in due course but this is, I find, somewhat fanciful in the context of this case.

Age, sex, background and any characteristics of the child which the court considers relevant. He has been diagnosed with a form of autism and is thus particularly susceptible to distress from unpredictable changes in circumstances and, of course, experiences of anger, shouting, distress, which regrettably were the backdrop to some of his earlier years. It is to be hoped that the harm undoubtedly caused by that conduct is not lasting.

Finally two factors I take out of turn (g) I do not propose to comment on specifically because I do not think it necessary to do so but (f). How capable are each of the parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is meeting his needs? As already stated the Mother is eminently capable and I reject un-evidenced assertions from the Father that the Mother has breached her undertakings or in any way exposed the child to the organisation and its teachings. It is very difficult to assess

Finally (e) any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. I refer once again to the schedule of findings against the Father. This was the child’s early experience of his father and a deeply abusive relationship with the Mother. It was found by this court that this caused emotional harm to the child. In terms of future risk of harm I again repeat that the Father appears to demonstrate absolutely no personal insight into his behaviour and its impact on the Mother and child. I accept all of the evidence presented by the family court adviser, principally at pages 4 to seven of her addendum report which demonstrates amply that the Father is incapable of confronting or analysing his own conduct and indeed takes every opportunity to perpetuate forms of stalking and harassment, inflicting emotional abuse on the Mother through the monitoring of her activities online and possibly, most disturbingly, in person, whether by himself or somebody else.

As recently as three weeks ago he sought again, and I have mentioned this, to raise an urgent safeguarding issue, clearly resulting from his monitoring, about the Mother taking the child to a festival that he had himself had previously attended. He proposes schooling for the child when he has had no direct involvement in his life for at least two years. He fixedly seeks evidence to link the Mother with the organisation and against all evidence alleges neglect of the child. Every organisation involved or, in the case of the testing company, for example, not even involved in the case, he has scrutinised for spurious links with the organisation. Every foreign holiday is suspected of being a clandestine trip with links to the organisation.

I further accept and endorse all of the family court adviser’s commentary at page 6 of her addendum report as to the extent to which this all represents an ongoing form of domestic abuse. He seeks to control the Mother’s and, by extension, the child’s activity and associations. His attitude towards her is all viewed through the lens of his

In terms of the balance of harm. I remind myself again that the starting point is that it

The risks of harm to the Mother and child if direct contact were allowed, however, are clear and expressed well by the family court adviser. The Father continues to deny all proven findings against him. He does not engage with reality. He demonstrates no self-analysis, he expresses no remorse, he merely flatly denies any and all allegations. He has caused considerable harm to the Mother historically, causing emotional harm to his young child in the process. Similarly he simply does not engage with the harm so caused. Importantly, and as I have found, he seeks to perpetuate control and emotional abuse at every opportunity; he fixates on the Mother’s involvement with the organisation when there is no evidence to support this; he scrutinises and monitors her. I agree with the family court adviser that this has caused the Mother to feel distress and harassment, naturally. I further agree that there is absolutely no evidence whatever of parental alienation on her part as suggested by the Father.

Overall therefore I find that the risk of harm to the child by not having direct contact with his father is substantially outweighed by the risks of harm to the Mother and child if direct, even supervised contact, were permitted. I think it more likely than not from all of his recent conduct and the content of his very lengthy statements that his Organisation fixation continues and he would seek to use such contact to undermine the Mother to the child and to seek evidence to support his ongoing concerns about the Organisation. Once again I consider this to be a form of ongoing domestic abuse.

I am assisted by the passage from the case of B v E cited by Ms Loeb in her skeleton argument:

“Contact should be terminated only in exceptional circumstances where there are cogent reasons for doing so, as a last resort when there is no alternative and only if contact will be detrimental to the child’s welfare.”

This is such a case. The circumstances are exceptional. I have given very careful consideration as to whether any form of direct contact, including supervised, can be managed safely and I have regrettably concluded that it cannot. I do not make this decision lightly but I see no reason to depart from the recommendations of the family court adviser.

I further remind myself, if further were needed, that the Father has previously threatened to abduct the child. It is a threat, given the history, that must be taken seriously and it is a grave risk that is very difficult to manage if there were to be direct contact. In this regard I have given very careful consideration to the factual matrix and applied the provisions of practice direction 12J. The extensive history of abuse, which is ongoing to a lesser but still significant degree, is such that direct contact cannot be managed safely. I propose to accept and follow the advice of the family court adviser as to the frequency and type of indirect contact.

I am then asked to consider making an order pursuant to section 91(14), this is recommended by the family court adviser and pressed for by the Mother. Again, I see no good reason to depart from the advice of the family court adviser. There is an extensive history of domestic abuse and no recognition of any wrongdoing. I consider that pursuant to practice direction 12J, paragraph 37(c) that whilst it may be the case that the Father is genuine in wishing to rebuild a relationship with the child, it appears to this court to be principally motivated by a determination to use these proceedings as opportunity to inflict further control and consequent emotional abuse on the Mother.

I recognise that the Father will be deeply distressed by this decision but it is to be hoped that he will take the opportunity to give some very serious thought to his past and indeed current conduct. It is harmful to the Mother, harmful to him and all those around him; and most importantly it is harmful to his child. The child and the Mother now need a period to allow them to settle properly into their lives and to get on with such lives without a constant backdrop of litigation fuelled by unsubstantiated allegations, monitoring and harassment. This can only be achieved if such an order is made and I do so for a period of two years.

In terms of other orders sought, given my findings and all of my observations in relation to this court, I find the conduct of this father to be, as I have made clear I hope, deeply disturbing. This mother and this child need the protection of the courts. Whilst there is a protection from harassment restraint order in place, I also, of my own initiative as there is no formal application before me, make a non-molestation order for a period similarly of

I share concerns that the Father uses foreign travel as a further means of exercising control, potentially causing emotional harm to the Mother and child. Given that there are no ongoing concerns of this court or from the family court adviser that the Mother does, as repeatedly alleged, have any ongoing involvement with the Organisation, there is no longer a requirement for a prohibited steps order to be in place and it should be discharged.

I agree further that if the Father were given the opportunity, for example, to be consulted about appropriate schooling for the child he would, again, inevitably use this as further opportunity to refuse, no doubt, to agree to any proposals of the Mother. For that reason I direct that the Father does not need to be consulted about any necessary change of school which results from, in particular, the child’s diagnosis of neurodiversity. He should be notified but not consulted.

I have already indicated that I agree with the family court adviser’s recommendation for the frequency and type of indirect contact. I am not persuaded that there is any real benefit to what I have termed a post office box system. As has been said, all that would result, in

Finally, the issue of the child’s NHS recommended vaccinations: well, I think I probably made it tolerably clear yesterday, that absent any specific professional medical

I have to say that I find it of concern when any unqualified individual decides to conduct their own internet research into complex medical matters. There is nothing wrong with doing that but as I indicated yesterday it is possible to find support and succour for any view one chooses if one looks on the internet. It is for this reason why one has to take at face value the advice that is given by our National Health Service, they consider vaccinations to be necessary and a child should have those vaccinations. That concludes my judgment.