FH v MH (PD12J: Parallel Criminal Proceedings)

I am concerned with A, a boy born on September 2020, who is five years of age, and B, a girl born on November 2022, who is three.

The applicant father is FH (who I shall call ‘father’), represented by Mr Singh of counsel.

The respondent mother is MH (who I shall call ‘mother’), who is represented by Ms Marsh of counsel.

I am invited to publish this judgment in anonymised form. I agree that publication is appropriate. Whilst the decision ultimately turns upon its own facts, it raises an issue of wider importance concerning the approach to be adopted where private law children proceedings run in parallel with criminal proceedings arising from substantially the same allegations of domestic abuse.

In particular, this case required the Court to consider the extent to which a parent's maintenance of a not guilty plea in criminal proceedings, following findings of fact made by the Family Court, should influence the assessment of current and future risk to the children. It also required consideration of the weight to be attached to evidence of meaningful behavioural change and therapeutic intervention where criminal liability remains in issue. Those are matters capable of arising in other cases and, in my judgement, publication of this decision in anonymised form may assist judges and practitioners considering similar issues in the future.

This is the third substantive hearing. I have given two previous written judgments. The first, dated 27^th April 2025 followed a fact find exercise. The second, dated 10^th August 2025 related to the issue of interim contact. These documents should be read in conjunction with today’s judgment.

The matter is listed for final hearing. I have considered a bundle containing 839 pages, and position statements from the parties. I have heard evidence from Kamaljeet Kaur, father, mother and CAFCASS officer Claire Shaw. In doing so, I have the experience, unique to myself, of evaluating their presentation in court. I have further heard submissions from counsel, and have sight of a ‘closing note’ from Mr Singh.

I have all the evidence in mind when reaching my decision. If I do not refer to a particular piece of evidence, this does not mean I have failed to consider it.

The matter was listed on 1^st and 2^nd July 2026. I have chosen to give a written judgment, which I send out by email on 12^th July 2026. It should be treated as handed down at 10.00am on 13^th July 2026.

Following the 10^th August judgment, it was ordered by consent that mother should make the children available at a contact centre once per week at a contact centre. The matter was next before the court on 8^th December when a progression of contact was ordered. This from 2 hours unsupervised on 14^th December, to overnight commencing on 31^st January 2026. It was recorded father sought a shared care arrangement, with the children spending Friday to Monday with him (picking up and returning to school) in addition to Wednesday overnight. CAFCASS were to file a child impact report by 16^th February 2026, dealing with progression of contact, type of ‘live with’ order, and whether a prohibited steps order should be made. The next hearing was to be a final hearing, with evidence from CAFCASS if required, and submissions from the parties.

Mother filed a C2 on 8^th January 2026. This informed that mother had received a letter from the court dated 7^th January, advising that, on 6^th January 2026, father pleaded not guilty to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damaging property. Mother is asked to attend the trial at Birmingham Crown Court on 30^th May 2028 until 1^st June 2028. The application states this is causing mother extreme anxiety and trauma, with another two and a half years to trial and cross examination. It was mother’s feeling that father had accepted the findings following the fact find, and the further judgment of the court that father had undertaken an amount of work causing him to ‘[change] and acknowledge wrongdoings.’

The criminal trial essentially covers the same incidents examined in the fact find.

Mother concludes that ‘I am distraught and very upset that the Applicant appears to have manipulated the family court into believing that he had insight into his violent conduct towards me and was showing remorse. By pleading not guilty, he has shown no remorse as findings of fact were made against him by DJ Hadley on 28^th April 2025 for the same incidents for which he has pleaded not guilty in the criminal court. I believe he is trying to make a mockery of the family court decision.’

Mother sought an order that contact cease immediately, that the police provide disclosure, and that CAFCASS take the criminal charges into account in the CIR.

The matter was listed on 30^th January 2026, at which time I varied the previous ‘spends time with’ order to pause the issue of overnight contact. I ordered that the children were to spend eight hours unsupervised with father every Saturday. Father was given permission to file a further report from Ms Kaur, and CAFCASS were to address the implications of father pleading ‘not guilty’ in a further addendum report.

Ms Kaur provided a letter dated 11^th March 2026, which notes that ‘…the Respect Domestic Abuse Programme does not involve determining criminal liability or making findings… The intervention focuses on behaviour change, reflective awareness and the development of safer relational responses… Engagement… should not… be interpreted as evidence that risk has been fully addressed or eliminated. Rather, such engagement forms one part of a wider process through which individuals may begin to develop greater awareness and behavioural change over time. Therefore, [father’s] plea within the criminal proceedings does not alter the factual account of the sessions delivered, the nature of the therapeutic intervention provided, or the observations recorded within the original report… For these reasons, the content of my previous reports remains an accurate reflection of the work undertaken with [father] within the programme.’

Ms Shaw filed a child impact report on 6^th April 2026. It is her first report in the proceedings, although the third from CAFCASS. This argues the ‘not guilty’ plea introduces uncertainty, and points to the disparity between accepting the findings made in the family court, with a denial of the same issues in the criminal court. It notes mother’s significant anxiety due to the criminal proceedings. Father is quoted as saying he ‘accepted the judge’s findings but hasn’t admitted guilt… I’m not arguing with the judge… I’ve accepted what he said… [but] I’m not going guilty on something I haven’t done.’ Father maintained to CAFCASS that the criminal allegations were made by mother because he ‘wanted to see the kids.’

Ultimately, Ms Shaw recommends the children should live with mother, and contact should return to supervised, weekly or fortnightly, with father. This until he ‘…demonstrates stable, consistent insight across all settings (including criminal proceedings).’

The matter was next before me on 23^rd April 2026, when I heard submissions from counsel relating to interim arrangements. I determined they should remain as per the previous order. It was agreed father would not attend school for assembly or sports day until after the final hearing. A further addendum from CAFCASS was ordered, in the preparation of which it was expected Ms Shaw would observe contact, and speak to Ms Kaur.

The final CIR was filed on 6^th June. A was seen at school, supported by a teacher. B was seen at nursery, where Ms Shaw spoke to her at snack time (after first attending a structured group session in order for B to become familiar with her presence).

Contact was observed in a soft play setting. Father is described over a number of paragraphs as being engaged, child-focussed, following the children’s lead, praising them, demonstrating warmth, positive body language, smiling, laughing, communicating well, meeting the children’s practical and emotional needs, attentive to safety, dividing attention between the children appropriately, demonstrating an awareness of their differing needs, setting appropriate boundaries, and using distraction to gain co-operation without escalation. ‘Overall, the contact session was observed to be positive, warm and child-focused. FH demonstrated an ability to meet the children’s emotional and practical needs, and both A and B appeared comfortable, secure and happy in his care during the observation.’

Nursery and school have no concerns relating to the children’s presentation, although B can present as slightly quieter on Thursday mornings (after spending Wednesday evening with father), but this is short-lived. Both children are clearly very bright. Nursery have a positive relationship with mother and father, with father demonstrating appropriate involvement. A’s school are aware of the court proceedings and difficulties with parents’ relationship.

Ms Shaw met with Ms Kaur on 21^st May 2026, noting the following observations from Ms Kaur:

Ms Shaw reflects upon Ms Kaur’s advice that therapeutic work does not require formal admission of guilt. Ms Kaur focusses on supporting individuals to recognise behaviours, understand the impact, and take responsibility. Ms Shaw advises ‘The court must therefore carefully weigh whether this reflects meaningful and sustained responsibility for his behaviour, or whether such insight remains, to some degree, context dependent.’

Ms Shaw notes mother reports B seeks reassurance during the night, often going to mother’s bed for comfort. ‘This is developmentally appropriate given B’s age and experiences; however, it is an important factor when considering any progression of contact, particularly overnight arrangements. It raises the question of whether FH is currently able to meet B’s emotional needs at these times, provide consistent reassurance, and respond in a way which promotes her sense of safety.’ It is questioned whether father could put B’s needs above his own wish for progression of contact, and recognise if B’s needs were not being met. Any negative feedback could be perceived by father as criticism, which Ms Kaur has identified father can find challenging.

It is noted that, taking into account the findings, A and B are victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Exposure to such abuse can have a significant impact upon emotional wellbeing, attachment and development. It is noted that the children currently present as settled and developmentally on track. They appear to be functioning well.

Ms Shaw notes the position is finely balanced. Whilst supervised contact is no longer recommended, caution is advised. B’s need for reassurance should be considered.

As such, the recommendation is that the children remain with mother as their primary carer. A shared care arrangement is not deemed appropriate due to previous conflict. Contact should remain as it is, with no overnight progression. Play therapy is recommended for B for a minimum of three months, with progression to overnight considered after this point. Parental interaction should be minimised, with handovers at school or nursery, or via a third party.

Mother in her final evidence questions whether father could have changed, pointing out he will not ‘step out if line’ whilst within family court proceedings. She points out father put her through a stressful finding of fact hearing rather than admit to the truth. If he has truly reflected, then he would not put her through the trauma of giving evidence in a criminal court. Mother points out that father states he has accepted findings in the family court, yet pleaded not guilty to the same incidents in the criminal court. If father accepts the findings, then he should say so. He should not deny them in the Crown Court. ‘Until he agrees with the findings made, and pleads guilty in the Crown Court, I cannot agree with the children seeing him overnight.’

As such, if father unequivocally accepts the allegations, mother suggests a ‘lives with’ order stating the children reside with her, with alternate weekend contact starting at one overnight, increasing to two (This to commence on 4^th July 2026). Wednesdays to remain after school only (no overnight). If father does not accept the findings, then contact should be alternate weekends, daytime only. Mother also seeks a prohibited steps order (PSO) to prevent father attending school events at the same time, or removal of the children from her care.

I note at the time of writing the statement, mother was awaiting police disclosure to see if she is blamed in any way for the allegations.

Father in final evidence states he accepts the findings. He has entered a ‘not guilty’ plea in the criminal proceedings on the advice of solicitors. He ‘…understand[s] that the criminal process is fundamentally different… The burden of proof rests with the prosecution and the standard of proof is… beyond all reasonable doubt… [He has] been advised… [he] should put the CPS to proof and that [he] is not required to provide evidence unless advised to do so.’ He continues ‘My position within the criminal proceedings should not be interpreted as a rejection of the findings made by this court or as a lack of insight into the impact of past events upon my children. I have accepted the findings made by the family court and have acted upon them by undertaking extensive therapeutic work to understand and address my past behaviour.’

Father asks that contact is progressed to overnight, fortnightly from Friday to Monday, with pick up / drop off to school. There should be a further overnight weekly from Wednesday evening to Thursday morning.

After some prompting, the police have produced the tape of father’s interview on 2^nd March 2026. This has been transcribed. Father essentially went ‘no comment’ to all questions, but provided a written document, which he read out. It reads as follows:

This brings us to the hearing.

As always, I have taken an extensive note of what has been said, on this occasion running to almost ten thousand words. I do not repeat it all.

I first heard from Kamaljeet Kaur, an Independent Social Worker / Systemic Practitioner. I note her CV, which is unchallenged. This states:

Ms Kaur noted father had voluntarily undertaken the work. Initially, there had been minimisation and denial, but he had now developed insight into his triggers and escalations, and the impact of such behaviour on mother and the children. He realises it is not about ‘What is the argument?’, it is about behavioural change – how his responses and actions affect other people. How behaviour can be managed safely to make sure it does not create further harm to a victim or child.

Father has attended over 40 sessions, and been told he does not need to continue. But he feels he would benefit from more. Ms Kaur has been helping father think about an attachment based approach, covering how the children present, and how he can be there for them as a safe parent.

Asked whether a not guilty plea changes her opinion, Ms Kaur felt it was not the focus of her work. She is focussed on behavioural change. What is a risk to the child? How can a safe environment be created for a child? Many parents will not fully admit to findings. Father may not have admitted to the charges as they are criminal proceedings, and this about proving an offence. The family court is about behavioural change, and how to make a situation safe for a child. It’s about considering how father manages the children safely now and in the future, whilst considering mother’s feelings.

If parents were together, there is a possibility of further domestic abuse. But if communication is structured, and there is no physical contact, then there is less risk of the children being exposed to harmful conduct.

Ms Kaur had not discussed with father the concept that the criminal trial would re-traumatise mother. However, she understood that mother would be feeling traumatised by the difficult process.

Ms Kaur accepted she was not a single joint expert, and had not seen the full fact finding judgment. She had seen the findings. She felt a party does not have to admit to behaviours, but must accept their behaviour would cause harm to another individual. The impact of her work is to gain perspective and understand. She felt father had accepted physical aggression, and that he had hit mother. Her job was to unpick the situation – How did it happen? Why? How can we make sure it does not happen again? Whether father accepts or admits is not her remit. It is about the change. In reflection and therapy, father has been able to acknowledge and reflect upon how his behaviour has impacted mother and the children. The issue is how to make sure this does not occur again. How he presents in criminal proceedings is totally separate from this.

Ms Kaur agreed that father had taken an identical stance prior to the fact find as with the criminal proceedings in that he said he had never been abusive.

Ms Kaur had worked with a number of parents involved in criminal proceedings. Most continue to deny any criminal offence. However, within the family court, the questions are ‘Has the person begun to acknowledge?’, ‘Can they keep away from the victim?’, ‘Can they provide safe care?’ and ‘Do they act in the same way?’

It did not surprise Ms Kaur that father had pleaded ‘not guilty’ in the Crown Court to a set of circumstances he ‘unequivocally accepts’ in family proceedings.

Father had been able to reflect on the situation relating to A and B. He has been able to attune, and think about them. Looking at the statement to the police, Ms Kaur felt her work was about taking responsibility for actions, regardless of who started an argument. He has acknowledged this part of his behaviour.

Ms Kaur did not feel able to comment about father’s criminal case, which seems to be he is putting mother forward as the aggressor.

Taken to father’s alleged comments to the CAFCASS officer regarding not pleading guilty to something he had not done, Ms Kaur acknowledged this caused her some concern regarding his insight. But she continued that behaviour is a different aspect. A person with negative views can still take responsibility for their actions.

Put to Ms Kaur that the criminal trial will not allow mother to move on from the abuse, she replied that relevant support is available, and mother should access this. She accepted the trial will re-traumatise mother. This may have an emotional impact upon the children.

Ms Kaur accepted that an increase to overnight contact could increase risk. This is why she had suggested a robust safety plan. It would also present as a risk if the parents were not able to share information about the children.

Whilst father can find criticism challenging, Ms Kaur has been working with father on this issue. It is about parental expectations and routine. This needs to be clear, as does his response to mother in such situations. Her work encompasses that, even if the children said to father, ‘Mom says this’, then father must be attuned in his responses. He must not take it as criticism, and must offer reassurance.

Across the 40 sessions, Ms Kaur felt father had changed. If he had not, she would not be ‘sitting here’ saying he had. He genuinely came to her with a view of making necessary changes. He wants his children’s life experiences to be different to his own.

Ms Kaur’s oral evidence did not differ significantly from her written documentation. She has clearly formed a view of father, and has a significant amount of experience in dealing with similar parents, in similar situations. Whilst she is not a court appointed expert, and is therefore in the employ of father, I did not get the sense she would support him to the detriment of the safety of children, or mother. I thought she showed quite a lot of empathy for the situation in which mother has been placed. I felt Ms Kaur was a good professional witness.

I next heard from father, who feels he is a good father, but could be better. He stated the work had made him think about his actions, and taught him only he was responsible. Contact had been ‘unbelievable.’

Father did not know if contact had been difficult for mother, as he had not spoken to her.

Asked about the letter he had presented to the police at interview, he said his solicitor had written the letter for him whilst at the police station. It was based on father’s instructions. He felt he was allowed a trial. He agreed he had put forward his own version of events, and was not therefore simply putting the Crown to ‘proof.’ He accepted the family court had found his version of events unconvincing, and has done work following the findings. The findings were not easy for him to read. The findings had ‘done him a favour’ as if they had not been made, he would not have had been able to reflect on them. He has looked at himself, and changed his beliefs as to what he could have done differently. With intensive work, he now has the tools to handle situations differently.

Whilst father has stated to the criminal court his actions were in self-defence, he still takes accountability for them. He admitted to the family court he had struck mother, and the judge made findings. However, he has been advised that in a criminal court there may be a self defence argument.

Father accepted some of the findings would have a direct impact upon the children, as they were present.

Cross examination was incident specific, and I worried about father incriminating himself in a criminal trial. As such, it was agreed I should read the Section 98 Children Act self-incrimination warning to father. Mr Singh, with the agreement of all parties, spoke to father privately about his understanding of the warning.

It was put to father that he could have taken responsibility for his actions, and pleaded guilty in the criminal court. Father responded he has been advised there is a criminal defence. He agreed it was in no-one’s interest for the matter to be ‘hanging over’ mother, and the children, for the next two years, but stated he had a right to a fair trial.

Father stated he may have said ‘something along [the] lines’ of his comments reported to the CAFCASS officer relating to not pleading guilty to something he has not done. But he accepts the family court findings. He has been advised to plead not guilty in the criminal court. Father accepts his actions caused mother physical injuries. At the time, because of the events leading up to the incident, he may have thought this was justified. Upon completing work, he realises he was responsible. No matter what the situation, there are other ways of dealing with it. Even if he was defending himself, then he was still responsible.

Turning to how an order might look, father felt it was a 35-minute journey from his house to school. He pointed out that mother leaves the house at 8am. Father would do the same, so the children would get up at the same time. The children are used to travelling in the car, never complain, and are excited to go to his house. Father accepted B is clingy, and slept in mother’s bed, but stated she is clingy with everyone. She says she is scared of the dark, and father has purchased night light and bunny lights.

Father denied he had prevented mother and the children going on holiday. He had said there was a final hearing in a weeks’ time, and arrangements could be sorted out then. He did not wish to contradict a possible court order.

When asked about Christmas arrangements, father very clearly stated he wished the children to spend Christmas Eve with mother. He pointed out she makes a huge effort, with a special breakfast, and taking them to the panto. He wanted this to continue for them.

Father gave evidence for a number of hours, and was asked very direct questions about his stance in the criminal proceedings. He looked very uncomfortable for periods, but answered all questions put to him. He seemed genuine in his responses, and I found him to be a good witness.

I next heard from mother. If the court sanctions overnight contact, she proposes Friday to Sunday every other weekend, leaving Wednesdays as currently. She does not want the children to travel excessive distances on a school day. Handovers should be at her mother’s house.

If the court feels there has been meaningful change in father, and he is remorseful, then she wanted to put some overnight proposals forward.

Mother felt that father needed to accept he was the perpetrator of domestic abuse. This had to be accepted in the criminal court to be meaningful. She does not want her son to take an example from a man who minimises his actions. It is not good for anyone to be involved in the criminal court for the next two years. Mother is confused as to father’s stance, and wondered how he can have accepted the findings of the family court, but does not accept the same matters in the criminal court. She noted he has said to the police he has never done these things. Does father understand how that makes mother feel?

Mother has pursued the criminal matter, and has contacted the police to ask if they were going to charge father. She had contacted them to enquire as to his bail conditions.

Mother would not say father is a ‘good dad’, but acknowledged the children enjoy spending time with him. He finds activities to do with them every week. He takes an interest in them. When pushed by Mr Singh, mother stated father shows affection to the children, plays with them, and buys them things. The children return saying they have had a good time.

Mother was asked what risks father posed to the children if they were to stay with him overnight. She responded that, if he has not changed, what would happen if he found a new partner? She is the third person who has reported violence from him. What if any new relationship is the same?

Mother hopes Ms Kaur’s assessment is right. But she feels father has done the opposite of the reports from Ms Kaur, and it is hard for mother to accept he has changed and grown. She also acknowledged Ms Kaur is a professional, but reasoned she has also been paid a lot of money by father. She has therefore benefited financially.

Mother did not feel that father dropping the children off at school would reduce interactions between her family. She reasoned that B would have to be dropped off at home in any event. Also, the children would be going to school with their belongings on a Monday if they went directly from father’s house. There would also be a considerable journey to school on a Monday morning.

The distance also applies on Wednesdays. If father was to drop the children at school from his home, the children would be tired. They may not have been put to bed early.

Mother answered all questions put to her. She thought carefully about the answers. I felt she was a good witness.

I lastly heard from Ms Shaw. She agreed contact she had observed had been excellent, and enjoyed by the children. When she saw A at school, he told her about the time he went to ‘Gladiators’ in Birmingham with father. He speaks positively about both parents. Father is appropriately involved with B’s nursery.

Ms Shaw acknowledged father had undertaken much work with Ms Kaur. She was clear there must be a safety plan to protect mother and the children. This will rebuild trust. She does not recommend mother being in the property when the children are dropped off at paternal grandmother’s, although she understood the circumstances as to why mother was there at the moment.

Ms Shaw is trained in the ‘Resolution’ approach, but is not a qualified practitioner. She was able to advise it is an approach used in private law (in my experience also public law) where parents are unable to admit guilt. They instead must demonstrate a change in behaviour. She recognises it is not widely used. ‘We push for acknowledgement.’ When asked if it was essential there should be total admittance or acceptance, or whether it is a change in behaviour that is most important, Ms Shaw responded there must be some acknowledgment of behaviours. On reflection, Ms Shaw would put the emphasis on willingness to change. The weight of father’s acceptance is a matter for the court, but she noted father’s significant engagement over two years, and no further incidents.

Referencing Practice Direction 12J, Ms Shaw was asked to consider the current risk to mother and the children. How does this fit with mother stating the children can stay overnight with father from this weekend only if he accepts criminal guilt? Ms Shaw felt that mother has experienced trauma, and wants a resolution and acknowledgment. Ms Shaw stated she had reflected much upon this point, and discussed it with colleagues. But ultimately, what is the risk, if mother says there can be overnight contact as long as there is verbal acknowledgment?

Ms Shaw took the view that the criminal proceedings were separate, and that anyone has a right to a criminal defence. Father has not directly said in the criminal court that he takes complete responsibility, but this is his right. It is recognised how traumatic this must be for mother. But is this relevant to the family court?

Ms Shaw agreed that change should be considered irrespective of the criminal case, that risk identified by findings must be addressed and managed safely, and that the focus should be on current and likelihood of future harm. There should be a demonstrable insight into behaviour, even if every finding was not accepted. Insight is not ‘all or nothing’. For Ms Shaw, it comes back to the Resolution approach, in which there does not have to be an admittance of guilt. There must be some acknowledgement. Ms Shaw deferred to Ms Kaur in her knowledge of Resolution. She noted Ms Kaur had stated father had not found the work easy, and he had been pushed to feel uncomfortable. Ms Kaur has used systemic and dyadic therapy, which is much deeper than a domestic violence programme.

When asked about father’s proposals for contact, Ms Shaw felt that progression should be at a slower pace. There are issues with B co-sleeping, and the children need to be emotionally well. They must not become lost in the process, which could cause them more trauma. They need time to adapt. Play therapy is not a pre-requisite, but should run alongside. There should also be a positive narrative from parents.

If pressed, there should be one overnight for four sessions (this at a duration of fortnightly), then three sessions of two nights. Progress to three nights should depend upon what is agreed. If the children show any distress, then it would be up to the parents to agree a pause or longer timetable.

Asked about Wednesday nights, Ms Shaw reflected she would like to see the weekend contact going well first. All the changes should not be made in one go.

Ms Shaw accepted Ms Kaur was not a court appointed expert but noted she had undertaken work, and provided therapeutic support. She also pointed out both parties had the opportunity to make a part 25 application, but had not done so. Since her final report, there has been a considerable amount of additional information, including the oral evidence to which Ms Shaw had listened yesterday. She can therefore be clear in her recommendations. She accepted mother may find the situation emotionally traumatic, but noted the children are having contact and enjoying it. If it was not safe, then Ms Shaw would say so. The issue is how mother is supported to manage, and make the situation more emotionally safe. This is why a safety plan is required.

Ms Shaw accepted that father’s comments to him, to the effect he was not going to plead guilty to something he had not done, did not sit comfortably with her. But should this be taken in its entirety? Or should it be balanced against the work he has done?

Ms Shaw had put the comments to Ms Kaur when they spoke. Ms Kaur was clear there does not have to be an admission of guilt for change to occur. Ms Shaw reflected she had not explored this statement in enough detail with father. She felt she may have let the parties down by not doing so.

Ms Shaw accepted that the impact of contact upon mother should be considered. But she pointed out the children have a relationship with father. Parents have to manage anxieties and their own responses to meet the needs of children. This is not easy.

Ms Shaw asked herself whether father’s not guilty plea made the level of risk any different to the children. She accepted it would put mother through two years of anxiety whilst awaiting the criminal trial.

Ms Shaw accepted that findings had been made which indicated father had exhibited risky behaviours in the presence of the children. Overnight contact would increase this risk. However, the therapeutic work is assessed as being successful. Father’s lack of admission of guilt in the criminal trial does not change this. It is the Resolution model.

Ms Shaw also accepted that father entering into a new relationship may increase risk factors. But this would require a ‘crystal ball.’

Ms Shaw felt some caution should be exercised with regard to parental communication. An app should be utilised.

Ms Shaw took into account father lives some distance from mother, but this is simply the circumstance. Ideally, all parents would live ‘around the corner’, but life is not like this. An hour of travel is not ideal, but also not insurmountable, and certainly not harmful.

Ms Shaw did not feel there was any risk attached to handovers at maternal grandmother’s house. But we must consider the future. Are such handovers sustainable in the long term?

Ultimately, the children live with their mother, but contact is going to progress at some point. The children love their time with mother and father.

Ms Shaw gave evidence for quite some time. She had clearly undertaken a considerable amount of work in the preparation of her final report. She recognised Ms Kaur’s expertise, and deferred to it. She had clearly reflected on all she had heard over the course of the evidence. She made concessions where appropriate, and took time to consider her answers. I felt she demonstrated an exceptional knowledge of the case. I found Ms Shaw to be a very good professional witness.

I have referred to the relevant principles in my judgment of 10^th August 2025. All still apply, save for Re C (Direct Contact: Suspension) [2011] 2 FLR 912.

Mr Singh’s closing note refers to an article entitled ‘The Resolutions approach: misunderstood and under-used’ [https://deanscourt.co.uk/articles/the-resolutions-approach-misunderstood-and-under-used], which I have read. The article references J (A Child) (Resolutions Model) [2021] EWFC 58, and the comments therein of His Honour Judge Baker. This case relates to public law proceedings, but the advocates have not invited me to distinguish it on this basis.

I am also referred to PD12J, in particular paragraphs 36 and 37:

In submissions, Mr Singh posed a number of questions he suggests I should ask myself in assessing father’s stance.

I agree these are relevant questions which assist in any analysis of the risk posed to the children (and mother) due to the children spending time with father. I must take into consideration father’s position in the ongoing criminal proceedings, and analyse whether such stance affects the analysis of risk.

I have heard a great deal of evidence over the course of two days which is specific to these points.

Father has undertaken over forty sessions of one-to-one therapy with Ms Kaur, who all parties acknowledge is quite the expert in the Resolution model. Ms Shaw, in my view rightly, defers to Ms Kaur in this regard. Ms Kaur is clear in her evidence that, whether father admits to the findings or not, he is now equipped to deal with situations in which he previously presented as a risk.

Father is assessed by Ms Kaur as having taken a very painful look at himself. He expresses considerable remorse for his actions during the relationship with mother, and very much recognises he was abusive.

Father has not presented in an aggressive manner to mother, or the children, for two years. He has filed, within the family law proceedings, a statement in which he accepts everything I have found him to have done.

He is now faced with criminal proceedings, relating to the same issues as have already been determined by me. Such proceedings are a much higher standard of proof, and father pleads not guilty. He tells me this is upon professional advice, and he has a defence. This is a different position to one which was put to me at an earlier hearing, in that father was simply asking the state to prove its case.

Both Ms Shaw and Ms Kaur took the view father is entitled to defend himself in criminal proceedings. Ms Kaur advises this would fit with the Resolution model in any event, as it is not the admission or acceptance, but the change in behaviour that is important.

Mother wonders whether father can have any level of acceptance, as he is putting her through the ordeal of giving evidence in a criminal trial. I can well understand the amount of stress this will put her through. It may affect her ability to care for the children in the two years leading up to the criminal fixture. However, I do take the view that father is entitled to put a case in his defence when, ultimately, his liberty may be at issue in the criminal court.

Leaving aside the issue of the criminal proceedings, these were the issues with which I grappled in the previous welfare hearing. The evidence then, as now, is that father has undertaken a massive amount of work with Ms Kaur. She is clear his risk is much reduced. Whilst I had to consider two differing professional opinions on the last occasion, the two experts are now aligned in their thinking. Father, in their view, does not pose a risk to mother or the children as long as there is a safety plan. This is the view of Ms Kaur and Ms Shaw, irrespective of father’s stance in criminal proceedings.

There have been no issues raised in the time father spends with the children throughout the proceedings. Supervised contact was exemplary. When this moved on to unsupervised, the children are reported to very much enjoy it. There is no suggestion that such contact should cease.

I therefore ask myself what additional risks would present themselves if contact moved to overnight? It is true that the children will spend more time with father, but there is no evidence that this will affect his ability to care for them. It is true that father has not demonstrated the knowledge he has gained in his work with Ms Kaur whilst in a relationship, but I cannot see how this can be assessed. Father may never enter another relationship. We just don’t know. In my view, this cannot delay progression of contact.

Mother’s own stance, in that she would agree to the children spending overnight time with father, from next weekend, if he would just admit his guilt to the criminal court, also somewhat flies in the face of the risk he is alleged to pose. I do not feel risk will suddenly reduce if he admits guilt. It is the work he has undertaken that reduces the risk, and the experts are clear risk has reduced substantially.

I realise that the criminal trial will weigh heavily on mother’s mind. This engages PD12J, and I ask myself whether mother’s physical and emotional safety will be compromised before, during and after contact. It’s a question I have asked myself previously, when I ordered contact should progress. I do not see how an increase in contact will change my assessment. Mother may well be worried about the children in father’s care, and this will no doubt affect her. However, her physical safety is not an issue, as a safety plan in which the parents have no direct contact with each other will protect her. The experts were both clear such a safety plan is essential.

I share the view of the experts that the work undertaken by father substantially reduces the risk to the children, and to mother.

It is on this basis that I take the view that the criminal proceedings, in which father has the right to defend himself, and put forward a defence on a much higher standard of proof, do not impact upon the issues I am dealing with in the family court.

It is my judgement that contact should therefore progress.

I turn to the welfare checklist:

The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned, considered in light of their age and understanding. A and B are five and three. A has spoken positively to Ms Shaw about his time with father. He enjoys it. He has no worries. B presents as sociable, but shy when Ms Shaw visited.

The contact session supervised by Ms Shaw raised no issues. It was a glowing report. The children had a very good time. I have no doubt in my mind they would wish to spend more time with father.

Physical, emotional and educational needs. The children need warmth, food, love, and access to education. It is my view they need to enjoy a relationship with both parents.

I do note the words of caution in Ms Shaw’s report, in that the duration of the proceedings may potentially affect the children. They are likely to be sensitive to changes in their parents’ presentation, behaviours and emotional states. The children are also recognised as victims of domestic abuse.

It is therefore essential the parties remain child focussed.

The likely effect on them of any change in circumstances. If I order extended contact with father, I am sure the children would love their time with him. However, this would mean they spend less time with mother, and there may be a sense of loss.

If I order overnight contact on Wednesday evenings, this would mean a longer trip to school on Thursday. This may cause some tiredness. It may also cause some confusion as to where they are living during the school week.

Age, sex, background and any characteristics which the court considers relevant. Nothing over and above already articulated.

Any harm they have suffered or are at risk of suffering. As above, they have suffered as victims of domestic abuse. This is at the very least emotional harm. They may be at risk of suffering further harm as a result of mother’s worry about the criminal trial, which will no doubt be a considerable distraction for her. They may pick up on such emotions.

The children would be at risk of harm if father did not continue to use the knowledge he has acquired in his work with Ms Kaur. However, there is no reason to believe he will not do so.

How capable each of the parents are of meeting their needs. Mother is more than capable. She has met the children’s needs all their lives.

Father is also, in my view, capable. Ms Shaw raises no issues with his ‘hands on’ care. The children have not spent time with him overnight, but if there is an incremental increase, this would be tested. If there are any adverse reactions from the children, the parents would be expected to use their parental responsibility to change the plans or extend the timetable.

The range of powers available to the court under the Act in the proceedings in question. It is not suggested I make no order, or reduce the contact. Effectively, I am being asked to make an order to progress it, or not.

Taking all into account, it is my view father does not pose a risk to these children if contact was to increase. Any risk, in my view, would be the same as now, when unsupervised contact is taking place.

It is my view that picking up the children from school will reduce any contact between mother and father. Whilst I appreciate B is at nursery currently, this will not always be the case.

I share the view of Ms Shaw in evidence, that this contact should progress slowly, starting at one night. It should then increase in line with her recommendations at paragraph 84 above. Any adverse reaction from the children should be considered carefully by the parents, who should be ready to communicate and co-operate in slowing down progression if necessary.

There will eventually be three nights, picking up from school every other Friday, and dropping off on Monday. This reduces contact between parents.

Ms Shaw was extremely cautious relating to Wednesday overnights. She felt the issue of the weekend contact should be progressed first.

I agree that these children will be undergoing a huge amount of change in their young lives due to the progression outlined above. I am also of the view they should, for the time being at least, have a ‘base’ during the school week, in the knowledge they will be sleeping in their bedrooms at mother’s house. They enjoy their time with father after school, and this should continue on Wednesdays. It may be that, in the future, parents will be able to agree some variation.

I found both professional witnesses to be very impressive and have as such followed their advice.

This concludes lengthy proceedings, which will have taken a toll on both parties, and especially upon mother. It is a great shame this does not end their involvement in the court system, with the criminal trial no doubt causing considerable stress.

It has been a privilege to read about these children, and a pleasure to hear so many people – mother, father, and all professionals – talk about them in such glowing terms. I am sure mother and father are very proud of A and B. Rightly so.

I wish mother, father, A and B, all the very best.

I also thank the advocates for the sensitive way in which they have handled the proceedings, and thoughtful cross examination. Both advocates have been present for a considerable number of hearings, with Mr Singh present for all. Such continuity has very much helped this case.

I invite the advocates to draw up an agreed final order. If there are any issues, I ask the advocates to contact me directly, and I will arrange a short notice hearing.