MN v OP & Ors

I consider it important that this judgment in private law proceedings be published, in furtherance of transparency in the family courts and to highlight the difficulties that can be faced in seeking discovery of the true voice of the child when that voice may be distorted by other influences or experiences. This judgment also demonstrates the court acting expeditiously to avoid delay defeating the purpose of an application and negatively impacting on a child’s welfare.

I have carefully considered the effect of publication upon the parties’ rights to a fair hearing, to respect for their private and family life and to freedom of expression without unjustified interference by a public authority. I am satisfied that any interference with those rights is substantially minimised, if not extinguished, by the anonymisation adopted in this judgment. There is nothing within this judgment which readily identifies, whether directly or by jigsaw identification, either parent or the child. I am therefore satisfied that publication, in anonymised form, is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of improving transparency in the family courts. I further add that in the adjournment referenced below, I highlighted that I was considering publication of the judgment yet to be given which afforded time for the parties present to reflect on the same.

This judgment concerns the welfare of JK who is a child who has not yet reached his teenage years. He is given a voice in these proceedings through his Children’s Guardian.

JK was involved in previous care proceedings which concluded on 28 July 2023 (“the 2023 care proceedings”) with a child arrangements order of shared care between his parents. Findings which were made in those proceedings included:

Professional support was identified for the parents, but sadly further concerns were highlighted in respect of JK and further care proceedings were instigated once again in 2025 (“the 2025 care proceedings”). Those proceedings concluded before me on 12 September 2025, and in delivering an ex-tempore judgment I made findings as follows which are relevant to the proceedings now before the court

“I do find that the Local Authority has proven on the balance of probabilities that [JK] is unable to feel comfortable expressing values and opinions that do not match that of the father, and there is a risk that [JK] will be unable to develop his own sense of identity. [JK’s] attachment to the father is at the level that he feels unable to have a good relationship with [the mother], and this is as a result of alienating behaviours displayed by the father.

I make this finding based upon a number of pieces of evidence. Firstly, by his own evidence, as I have set out, the father accepted everything is overheard in his house, and [JK] was in the house when he was speaking to the police about his views of historic allegations made, and he has seen the level of hatred which the father has towards the mother. I find given the palpable hatred the father has of the mother which came across so clearly in the words of his evidence to this court and to Dr Cooper, I find it is unlikely to have escaped [JK] when in the father’s home and presence, and given the strength of hatred he feels and the small home described by the father, [JK] was likely suffocated by that, significantly impacting upon him emotionally. It is evident in the presentation of [JK], described by the police as being almost robotic, and repeating the same phrases, with language which is not typical of a 10 year old child and utilised more adult language. Even referencing to a judge not supporting him – which again is not language that would be expected of a child, as a child of his age is unlikely to understand these public law proceedings in any significant way. In support of my reasons for making this finding, the hatred referred to oozed out father naturally in the witness box. In one respect to his credit he did not seek to conceal it. However, his complete openness of such hatred in this environment demonstrates how natural it is to him, and [JK] will undoubtedly pick up on that if not in direct ways then certainly through indirect ways, including for example the father telling [JK] “to be strong” when dropping him off at the mother’s home.

Then there are the diaries, which on [JK’s] own account he says the father documented abuse of the mother. It is immaterial as to whether this is the case, but the point is [JK] believes the Father has diaries with this evidence contained in, which provides credibility to the allegations in [JK’s] eyes.

There is also the codeword created by the father – telling a 7 or 8 year old child that such is the risk from his mother that there needs to be a secret codeword to protect likely instilled in the mind of 7 or 8 year old [JK] the perception that he did need protection, and built barriers and secret which eroded the relationship with his mother.

When piecing all of this together, I find that the father has weaponised [JK], his own son, in his hatred of the mother. Whilst the father said in his evidence it was Dr Cooper’s word of hatred, not his, he accepted using the word detest and dislike, and that he saw no good in her. It is a somewhat matter of semantics to suggest ‘detest’ and ‘hatred’ are not synonymous. Just to prove that point, when I right click on this computer with where I have written detest, the first synonym is ‘hate’. When considering that emotional harm further, I find that in weaponizing [JK] in this way, it has resulted in [JK] in being unable to have consent from the father to have a positive relationship with the mother. In respect of these 2 latter points, they are simply an extrapolation of the threshold finding sought by the local authority, and they relate to matters which has been explored with the father in his written and oral evidence, but it puts meat on the bone as it were in understanding the real emotional harm suffered by [JK].

Building on from this, and again a reason for underpinning the finding I have made in respect of the welfare finding sought, the father being unable to shift his view. I am hard-pressed to recall any case where there has been such an absence of any insight of a parent in a case as to their own actions and behaviour. Even when being given repeated opportunities to reflect upon matters in the witness box, including being asked directly, the father maintained his position that his behaviour has had no negative impact on [JK]. That is a wholly untenable position not least by the previous findings made by the court in the previous care proceedings particularly in respect of the hostile relationship between the parents and the parents’ failure to prioritise [JK’s] emotional needs. Furthermore, he could not even accept that in having raised numerous allegations against the Mother to the police when [JK] was in close proximity in the home and, on the father’s own evidence, would have overheard, he could not see how that might have impacted on [JK]. Furthermore, in detesting the mother, and being unable to find any positive value in her at all, he failed to see how that might be picked upon by [JK] and impacted him. The father could also not see how it might be intimidating, harassing or even intrusive to have a private investigator observe and report on the mother, and how she might feel those matters and how [JK] might then pick upon that. This is not a case of there being even the green shoots of some limited insight”.

The outcome of those public law proceedings was that JK was made subject of a care order in favour of the Local Authority, with me finding it exceptional to make such a care order with JK to live at home with the mother. I also directed it was not safe for JK to have unsupervised time with the father.

These proceedings began by an application by JK’s mother dated 23 June 2026 for a specific issue order for the return of JK’s passport from the father and for permission to take JK on holiday this summer. Owing to the period before the holiday was due to commence, the application was issued urgently. Permission was granted under the care order and pursuant to section 33(7)(b) of the Children Act 1989 to proceed.

I administratively reviewed the application on 23 June 2026, and I listed the matter to be heard on 29 June 2026. I also directed for the father to provide JK’s passport to the Local Authority by 4pm on 25 June 2026.

The hearing took place before me on 29 June 2026. The father did not attend the hearing but had filed a statement stating he was overseas but opposing the mother’s application. Conscious that delay to the proceedings would have the effect of defeating the application, and being further conscious of the previous findings made, I considered it necessary for a Children’s Guardian to be appointed and I further provided directions for the filing of evidence and the listing of this final hearing. I considered that in light of the previous findings the mother should not be cross-examined by the father, but that given the timeframe a qualified legal representative was unlikely to be able to be secured and the father was not present to convey his views in relation to the same, as such I directed for the father to file any questions he sought to ask of the mother by 4pm on 8 July 2026, which followed a direction for the filing of statements from the parties.

At the hearing on 29 June 2026, it was discussed that there was conflicting information regarding JK’s passport, with the father having initially told the Local Authority he had it, but then JK stating he had it and had hidden it. In such circumstances, I made no adverse findings but I declared that the passport was lost and granted permission for the mother and/or the Local Authority to urgently apply for a new passport, with the Local Authority to hold such a passport pending further determination by the court.

At the outset of this final hearing on 10 July 2026, and on behalf of the Children’s Guardian, it was raised she sought some further clarification and information around the travel risks to the country concerned, such that she could not finalise her recommendations. In discussion with the parties present, and with agreement, I heard evidence of the mother (whose position was unaffected by the alleged travel risks) and I adjourned until today (15 July 2026) to enable those further enquiries of the Children Guardian to be undertaken.

Before concluding the end of the first day of this final hearing last week, and having heard the positions of the parties, I enquired whether parties considered there was merit in me meeting JK, and that was positively met by those present. I duly put arrangements in place which I will discuss below.

The father has not attended the hearing last week or today, and no application has been made for an adjournment or for his remote attendance. He has, however, filed a statement following the Order I made on 29 June 2026. He has therefore been able to engage, and I find that his right to fair hearing has not been impacted. If the father has remained overseas, provision could have been made, on application, for his remote attendance.

On the information before the court, which includes the statements of the father, if these proceedings were to be delayed there would be a significant impact on the right to a private and family life of JK; he has been involved in proceedings through 2023, 2025 and now 2026, and delaying or extending these proceedings further against that context, and given his ever increasing age, and conscious that the decision relates to a holiday in a matter of weeks, would be of greater detriment to that right of his than the same right of his parents or any perceived impairment of the father’s right to a fair hearing, which has been preserved in any event given the directions provided and his engagement. The father has been provided the opportunity to file questions to be asked of the mother but has not to do so.

The purpose of meeting with JK was not to gather evidence, but rather to enable JK to feel he could say anything he wanted to me. Some children do so by way of writing letters to judges, but there is real benefit in meeting a child and for the child to have a natural conversation. I was grateful for the assistance of the social worker with the practical arrangements, and for the solicitor for the Children’s Guardian for taking a note of the conversation.

JK was an absolute pleasure to meet. He talked to me about the World Cup and how PE is his favourite subject at school. I provided him the opportunity to say anything he wanted to say to me about the decision which I had to make as to whether he goes on holiday with his mother or not, but I confirmed to him that the decision rests with me and that the conversation is not secretive which is why a note was being taken.

JK told me that he would go on holiday, but that he was worried about not returning. He also told me that he wanted me to know that it is not illegal for a child to be hit in the country concerned and he has found that out from internet searching, and that he recalls being hit by his mother when he was aged 7 or 9. He said his mother had offered to buy him an XBOX and new clothes if he went on holiday.

When being asked how he would feel if I decided he should go on the holiday, he said “I don’t know”, and when being asked how he would feel if I decided he should not go on the holiday, he replied with the same “I don’t know”.

The mother initially relied upon statements dated 23 June 2026 and 6 July 2026. She describes how earlier in this year she had discussed the holiday with JK and he was “excited” and that he “has spoken positively about meeting [her] family”, including his half-brother who he has spoken on the telephone with about “football, games and making plans for the holiday”. She notes that the father is working away such that it will not impact on contact arrangements, and that she will facilitate indirect contact. She said she has never made a threat to remove JK from the UK, and within her first statement provides the addresses at which she would be staying and further confirmed she would provide all the booking details to the Local Authority.

Within her second statement the mother sets out how, at the point of separating from the father, he would tell JK she did not have documents to remain in the UK and would have to leave, and that if JK chose to reside with her she would take him away. She sets out that she is settled in the UK with her children, and that since conclusion of the proceedings in September 2025 there has been a “significant shift” in JK’s behaviour such that he now engages in extracurricular activities such as football and boxing. She confirms she would never seek to disrupt JK’s education, or indeed that of her daughter who is due to commence university.

In her oral evidence the mother said she continues to work with the Local Authority, and she accepted that JK knows the social worker well. She also accepted JK has told the social worker that he did not want to go on the holiday because he is scared about not being returned, but that is because JK is aware that whatever he says will be on a report and his father will find out about it.

She said that JK is really excited about going on holiday, and that it will really help him to meet with his wider family and experience the love and care that they have for him, and it will help his mental health. She described JK was not resistant to have a passport photograph taken or when attending the GP to make arrangements for the necessary vaccination. She also said JK has been making plan after plan with his half-brother who he would meet on holiday.

The mother said that she would be staying with her sister during the holiday. She said it is safe. She said the holiday will provide an opportunity for JK and his half-brother to meet for what would be only the third time. When travelling around on holiday, she said she would travel by car.

She said she would not force JK to go on holiday against his wishes. She said if JK does go on holiday but wants to return home partway through, she would make arrangements to bring him back. She said she would give a promise to the court to bring JK home, and she would provide any information necessary to offer reassurance.

The mother said that the matter of the passport and the holiday was raised with JK and the father before the social worker met with JK in May 2026, such that there could have been direct influence from the father on the matter.

She said that if the period of the holiday was considered to be too long, she would be willing to shorten it.

The mother submitted a further statement dated 13 July 2026 which set out some of the further details relating to the holiday, the clarity of which was sought on behalf of the Children’s Guardian at the hearing last week. She then set out the following of what arose on the day I met JK:

“[JK] was due to be collected by the social worker at 8:30am. [JK] normally leaves home at 7am to go to school. An unknown number contacted [JK] at before he had left the house. I answered the phone and I heard [the father] … I then seen a message from the unknown number pop up on [JK’s] phone however it disappeared quickly.

When I checked [JK’s] WhatsApp, I could not see the message and therefore

I asked [my daughter] if she could have a look on the phone to see if she could find it. [My daughter] then informed me that the messages from the unknown number are password protected. I asked [JK] if he could come down and show me the messages and he provided me with the password”.

The mother exhibits some screenshots of the messages which she says are between JK and the father, which include calls and messages, including the following:

The father relies upon statements dated 26 June 2026 and 8 July 2026. Within his first statement he states:

“I only want to highlight [JK’s] wishes and that he does not want to leave the country with his mother and has stated he will not leave with her by any means. This is because when [JK] was 8 years of age and involved in childcare proceedings he was threatened by his mother that he would be taken away …”

Within his second statement the father states:

I heard oral evidence on behalf of the Local Authority from the social worker. She relies upon a report dated 25 June 2026. She sets out that JK became known to the Local Authority in 2020/2021 due to concerns arising from parental conflict. She further details that since the conclusion of the 2025 care proceedings, the father has been having twice weekly supervised contact with JK. She further states:

“[JK] is settled in his mother’s care with no major issues, although he continues to express a strong wish to live with his father and repeats allegations against his mother …”.

The social worker further sets out visits she has made to JK, and in relation to the proposed holiday he has “fears his mother may take him there and leave him”, and how “[JK] repeated concerns that his mother previously threatened to kidnap him and stop him seeing his father”. I note at this juncture that the court has not found such an allegation ever proven. At a subsequent visit, JK stated “he does not trust his mother’s reassurances that he would return”.

The social worker’s analysis and recommendations are as follows:

“The issues of the mother’s plans to travel with [JK] indicates that JK remains emotionally affected by the ongoing parental conflict and appears caught between both parents’ opposing positions … Although the influence of either parents cannot be ruled out, [JK’s] views have been consistently expressed and should be given careful weight. Forcing travel against his wishes risks increasing his distress, undermining his emotional stability, and may heighten safeguarding concerns, including the risk of him running away or further deterioration in his behaviour at school … The Local Authority does not recommend that [JK] travels … at this stage”.

The social worker also refers to and has considered a statement from the Local Authority’s Independent Reviewing Officer dated 14 July 2026. Whilst I have not heard directly from this Officer, it is a matter which the social worker refers to and so I will address it now. This Officer’s statement states:

“I believe that if [JK] were to travel … with his mother, this would be a great experience in respect of [JK’s] own culture and identity and would be beneficial. It would give [JK] the opportunity to meet members of his extended family and experience the area where his mother lived and the culture of the city. However, I have reservations about the length of time it is proposed that [JK] would be away from his home, his friends, and his family in this area. [JK] would also have to endure the level of worry he has in respect of whether he will return to the UK for the duration of the trip and I do not know how this could be mitigated. [The mother] has always stated she would return [JK] to this country as this is where he was born and here his life is … and I understand her daughter has plans to work and attend university in September. I cannot guarantee this, but I do not have strong worries that [JK] will not be returned to his home in this area by his mother.

The Independent Reviewing Officer states further:

“I have now been made aware that [JK] and his father have been secretly in communication with each other and this raises concern about the level of influence [the father] is having on [JK’s] shared voice and decision making. As I understand it, the secret communication was discovered by [the mother] and discussed with [JK] just before he met with HHJ Robinson and this may have influenced his answers at that time. [JK] is again in the middle of the opposing views of both parents which reflects the level of emotional harm that has been a feature throughout local authority involvement”.

The Independent Reviewing Officer concludes:

In her oral evidence, the social worker said that, having considered the evidence as a whole and the matters reported by JK, she did not understand his wishes and feelings to amount to a settled objection to the holiday itself. Rather, she considered that JK had consistently expressed anxiety about whether he would return to the UK. She accepted that those concerns are genuine for JK. She also addressed the negative influence of the father upon JK, although she was unable to identify the precise extent of that influence. She further noted that, when JK met with me, he referred to the mother having offered to buy him an XBOX and other items if he went on the holiday. The social worker accepted that she had emailed the father about the proposed holiday on 11 May 2026, before speaking to JK about it on 14 May 2026. In light of the subsequently discovered secret messages between the father and JK, she accepted that it was possible that JK had been influenced by the father. She also said that secret communication of that nature would be emotionally harmful to JK because it required him to keep matters from his mother.

The social worker confirmed that the father was aware that his contact with JK was to take place only on a supervised basis. She also confirmed that the father had not informed the Local Authority that he was communicating directly with JK.

The social worker described progress since the conclusion of the 2025 care proceedings. In particular, she said that JK has not made further allegations against the mother, although he has repeated some previous allegations. She further said that the mother has put appropriate boundaries in place for JK, that JK is doing well at school and that his attendance is excellent.

She said that, if JK were to travel before he was emotionally ready to do so, there was a risk of emotional harm arising from his anxiety that he would not be returned to the UK at the end of the holiday, and from his worry that he would disappoint his father by going. She accepted that JK’s anxiety about not returning emanates from what the father has said and from matters which JK has then internalised.

She explained that, since the conclusion of the 2025 care proceedings, psychological interventions have taken place and Dr Cooper is presently undertaking a further evaluation, with a report due later this month. She said that there is currently no evidence before the court to demonstrate that the father is able to support JK’s relationship with his mother.

The social worker said that on leaving the UK, the care order would have no effect when abroad on this holiday. In view of the anxieties which JK has she considers that the length of the proposed holiday is too long on this occasion, and instead it should be reduced to either 2 or 3 weeks. She said that if the holiday was approved, she said weekly check-ins could be facilitated by the Local Authority, but there would need to be a willingness by the mother.

If the court decides JK should not go on the holiday, she said there is a positive viability assessment in respect of the paternal grandparents such that JK would be able to stay with them, but there is a concern around the paternal grandmother speaking negatively about the mother and also JK having unsupervised time with the father during that time. She said a safety plan would be implemented.

She said if the holiday was shorter, she would support the holiday for the reasons which she has set out in relation to balancing the anxieties of JK. She said that in terms of contact during such a holiday, she would support contact between JK and the paternal grandfather, but she has worries about how contact could be supervised with the father.

In view of the ongoing concern of emotional harm, the social worker supported that there be an order in place, such as a non-molestation order, to prevent the father causing further harm to JK by virtue of unsupervised contact.

I next heard evidence from JK’s Children’s Guardian. She has filed a position statement dated 9 July 2026 in which she states that JK has little memory of meeting her in the previous proceedings and he shared that there was a disagreement about whether he should go on holiday with the mother and his elder sister.

The Children’s Guardian sets out the words used by JK:

“I don’t mind going … it’s just the coming back … What if I don’t come back. She … left her other son there … I don’t mind going, I’m just worried mam will leave me there …”

She further sets out JK’s concerns of missing family members if he did not return. The position statement also details how the mother’s daughter is to commence university in the UK in September, and how her daughter has a boyfriend in the UK, and how the mother knows it would be illegal not to return to the UK and she would not do anything to get herself in trouble.

The Children’s Guardian sets out in her position statement that she considers JK’s “relationship with his mother is continuing to heal and repair”. She says further:

“… [JK] is not actively opposing the holiday with his mother but does express a high level of anxiety about being left … these anxieties are very real for him … the Children’s Guardian does have concerns that this view has not been reached by [JK] independently given the previous Findings made by the Court. The Children’s Guardian professional view is that [JK should go on holiday … The Children’s Guardian feels the holiday would fulfil [JK’s] curiosity about his mother’s country of birth and enable him to spend quality time with family members … At the current time, the Children’s Guardian can see no evidence to suggest that the mother intends to remain …. Or that [JK] would be left to live [there]”.

Following the hearing last week and a direction I provided, the Children’s Guardian has since filed a final analysis dated 14 July 2026. She has repeated the above matters within that analysis but has furnished it with further detail. She sets out that there are no travel restrictions to the holiday destination. She writes further:

“It is my reading of case papers that [JK’s] wishes and feelings are often influenced by who he speaks to and where these discussions take place. On this basis, [JK’s] pertinent thoughts and opinions can be unreliable and at times, [JK] has reported accounts of physical harm from his mother, without being able to provide specific detail to these accounts …

To enable [JK] to assimilate and develop his own unique thinking – as he approaches his teenage years, he will need to be able to develop firm trust that his mother is honest, that she loves him and that she wants the best for him, at all times …

Should this trip go ahead, this will enable an opportunity for [JK] to develop his own identity, sense of belonging and his unique culture and enjoy a shared experience with his mother and sister. Should this trip not go ahead, it will likely increase to some extent his own anxiety that he shouldn’t go and potentially he is in danger if he visits …

There does remain a dynamic that [JK] does not feel he has been listened to, despite numerous discussions between [JK] and a number of professionals ...”.

The Children’s Guardian ultimately concludes her recommendation that JK should be permitted to attend the proposed holiday.

In her oral evidence, the Children’s Guardian expressed concern about the continuing acrimony within the family dynamics. She considered that, if JK did not travel and instead remained with the paternal grandparents, there was a real risk that his existing fears about his mother’s home country would be reinforced rather than reduced.

She described the relationship between JK and the father as intense. In her assessment, JK oscillates between seeking to keep each parent happy, but separately. He has learnt that the division between his parents is formidable, and he knows that the father does not support the proposed holiday. For that reason, the Children’s Guardian expressed concern about video or telephone contact between JK and the father during the holiday, given JK’s difficulty in reconciling the conflicting positions of his parents.

In relation to the possibility of a non-molestation order being made to protect JK from the father’s conduct, the Children’s Guardian agreed that such an order may be necessary.

The Children’s Guardian accepted that risk cannot be eliminated entirely. However, she emphasised that JK cannot be placed in the position of determining the outcome of these proceedings. She said that she felt strongly that JK should travel. In her view, the holiday would provide a real opportunity for JK to organise his early thinking, to address the confusion within his developing sense of identity and to form his own informed view about the country and the maternal family who live there. It would also give him the lived experience of travelling there and returning safely to the UK. She considered that, if the holiday did not take place, there was a real risk that JK’s present fears would become further entrenched.

She acknowledged that children who are subject to care orders may travel abroad for holidays. She accepted, however, that once JK was abroad the practical effect of the care order would be limited. She nevertheless said that there was no evidence that the mother would be unwilling to work openly and cooperatively with the Local Authority while abroad.

When addressing JK’s wishes and feelings, the Children’s Guardian emphasised the need for a nuanced analysis. She observed that JK adapts what he says according to the person to whom he is speaking. In her assessment, JK is an overwhelmed child, but the proposed holiday would be beneficial for him.

The Children’s Guardian considered that the professional anxieties identified in the case needed to be confronted and overcome. She said that she could see no evidence that JK was so traumatised by the prospect of travel that he would refuse to get into a car to go to the airport or board the aircraft. She accepted that, if JK became distressed while abroad, the Local Authority would not be able to intervene directly. However, she emphasised that there were no significant concerns about the mother’s parenting capacity, and she characterised the Local Authority’s position as risk averse.

As to the duration of the proposed holiday, the Children’s Guardian did not consider that shortening it would achieve any meaningful protective purpose. She regarded a reduction in the proposed period as unnecessary and disproportionate.

The Children’s Guardian accepted that JK had been given a number of opportunities to say that he wished to go on the holiday, including to the social worker, to the Children’s Guardian, at school and to me. However, she considered that the issue could not properly be reduced to a simple affirmative or negative answer. In the context of the findings of parental alienation, she said the court must approach JK’s expressed wishes and feelings with care. The fact that JK has not given a clear yes or no answer was, in her view, itself indicative of his confusion. She therefore considered it important to place JK’s words in their proper context and to apply professional understanding to them.

The Children’s Guardian recognised that there was a balance to be struck. If JK travelled and the experience was negative, there could be some damage to his relationship with the mother. However, she considered that the greater risk lay in refusing permission for the holiday, because that outcome would feed into and validate JK’s existing fears. She described the holiday as an opportunity for JK to have a positive experience with his mother and maternal family, something which is presently absent from his own “memory bank”. In her words, the court should consider not only what JK would be taken from during the holiday, but what he would be taken to.

She accepted that, if the court ordered the holiday to take place, the risk of some adverse impact upon JK’s relationship with the social worker was a relevant factor to be weighed in the welfare balance.

Having considered all of the evidence before me, I heard closing submissions. On behalf of the mother, it was submitted that the offer to purchase clothing was directed to the practical needs of the holiday, and that the discussions about XBOX games were ordinary family conversations rather than any attempt to bribe JK. It was submitted that, but for the father’s alienating behaviour, JK would be excited about the holiday. It was emphasised that the holiday would take place within the safety and support of the maternal family, and that no professional had raised any concern about the mother’s ability to manage JK or his emotions during the trip. It was further submitted that JK has not stated that he will not go on the holiday. The messages exhibited to the mother’s recent statement were relied upon as demonstrating the continuing negative impact of the father upon JK, resulting in confusion and ongoing emotional harm. The holiday was submitted to provide JK with an opportunity to experience the love and care of his maternal family. Conversely, refusal of permission was said to risk further entrenching JK’s fears and making the future repair of his relationship with his mother significantly more difficult. It was also submitted that JK should not bear the burden of making this decision. The mother confirmed her support for disclosure of this judgment to Dr Cooper, for the making of any protective order which the court considers necessary and for publication of the judgment in anonymised form.

On behalf of the Local Authority, it was submitted that it is not presently in JK’s welfare interests to travel abroad for this holiday. Although the Local Authority recognised the father’s influence upon JK, it emphasised that JK’s fears are genuinely held by JK. The social worker was concerned about the risk of emotional harm if JK were to perceive the holiday as being imposed upon him, and about the potential adverse impact upon his relationship with the mother. It was further submitted that the care order would have no practical effect while JK was abroad. The proposed holiday of just over 5 weeks was said to be a substantial period of time, during which the Local Authority would be unable to intervene if JK became distressed. The Local Authority submitted that JK’s position amounted to more than mere ambivalence, and that he had stated that he did not wish to go. It was also submitted that the delicate progress which has been made should not now be jeopardised, and that the risk of such progress being undermined is significant. The Local Authority submitted that it was required to adopt a protective approach. It supported publication of the judgment, subject to anonymisation, supported the making of a non-molestation order and supported disclosure of the judgment to Dr Cooper. For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Authority opposed the holiday taking place; however, if the court were to permit the holiday, it submitted that the duration should be reduced.

On behalf of the Children’s Guardian, it was submitted that JK’s anxieties are genuine and must be taken seriously, but that they must be considered in the context of the serious findings made only 10 months ago and the continuing secretive, unsupervised contact between the father and JK. It was submitted that JK’s expressed concern is that he may be left abroad, but that concern cannot properly be detached from the father’s influence. It was submitted on behalf of the Children’s Guardian that, if the court were not to permit the holiday, there is a real risk that JK’s existing beliefs and anxieties would be further entrenched. It was further submitted that the Children’s Guardian has every confidence in the mother’s ability to manage and meet JK’s needs, and that it is very unlikely that the mother would fail to return to the UK with JK. The pressing issue for the court was therefore submitted not to be the risk of non-return, but the management of JK’s anxieties. It was submitted that, if the holiday does not take place, JK is likely to internalise that outcome in a way which would undermine the genuine progress made over the last 10 months. The mother’s offer of an undertaking was referred to as an additional safeguard. As to the duration of the holiday, it was submitted that, if the Local Authority accepted that 2 weeks would be manageable, there was no principled distinction in practical terms between a shorter holiday and the proposed period. The Children’s Guardian submitted that JK’s anxiety about his mother can only be addressed through lived experience, and that the proposed holiday would provide such a unique experience while also enabling him to develop his understanding of his own identity and of his maternal family’s culture. The Children’s Guardian supported the making of a non-molestation order in respect of the father, did not oppose publication of the judgment subject to anonymisation and supported disclosure of the judgment to Dr Cooper.

I turn first to my assessment of the witnesses from whom I heard oral evidence. I found the mother to be an entirely open, honest and credible witness. When asked for further particulars about the holiday, she provided them readily and without hesitation. She did so consistently, both in her written evidence and in her oral evidence. Her evidence was transparent, coherent and reliable.

As to the social worker, I found her to be a careful and reflective witness. She considered the questions put to her in the witness box and gave measured answers. She was willing to absorb new information and, where appropriate, to modify her opinion, most notably in relation to the principle of JK travelling on holiday if the duration were reduced. Such willingness to reassess her position was to her credit. It demonstrated that she was able to evaluate evidence which had emerged after the filing of her evidence and to balance it fairly with the information already available to her. I found her to be honest, credible and clear in the reasons underpinning her professional opinions.

I found the Children’s Guardian to be an impressive, measured and balanced witness. She had plainly considered the evidence with care and was able to reflect appropriately as the evidential picture developed during the hearing. Of particular importance, she ensured that JK’s voice was placed before the court in a clear, nuanced and balanced way. I attach significant weight to her evidence and analysis for these reasons.

It is JK’s welfare which is my paramount concern in the analysis and decisions which I am required to make. To assist me in that regard, section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 sets out several factors to consider. It is not a tick-box exercise, and instead they must be considered holistically, and carefully weighed together. Any findings which I make are made on the balance of probabilities, that is to say that they are found to have occurred more likely than not.

I first address a factual issue, namely whether the father has communicated with JK outside the parameters of supervised contact. Although the evidence relating to this issue emerged shortly before the adjourned final hearing today, the father has had an opportunity to attend court and to respond to it. He has not done so. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that his right to a fair hearing has been preserved. Having considered the messages exhibited to the mother’s statement, I find that they are authentic. The language used is natural to communication between JK and his father and reflects their relationship as father and son. Photographs of the father were also sent within those messages. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the father has communicated with JK by both messages and voice calls outside supervised contact (such voice calls being shown in the screenshots of the messages).

The second factual issue is whether those communications were secretive and concealed. I find that they were. I accept the evidence of the mother, the social worker and the Independent Reviewing Officer; their evidence is consistent. Despite the Local Authority’s involvement with the family pursuant to the care order, no professional was aware that this contact was taking place. The communications were also password protected. I am therefore satisfied that the contact was deliberately concealed from the mother, the Local Authority and the court.

In having made those limited factual findings, I turn to consider any harm which JK has suffered or is at risk of suffering. I have set out above the emotional harm which JK has suffered, which in part led to the care order being made. The father has continued with secretive communications which places an emotional burden upon JK, accepting the evidence of the Children’s Guardian and the social worker. This is not simply a father seeking to have contact with his son, but a father who has continued with the harmful behaviours as previously found which prevents his son having the ability to build a positive relationship with his mother free from his negative influences. Whilst I accept the evidence of the social worker that there has been progress made, in the submission made on behalf of the Local Authority, it remains delicate. The long-term impact of the father’s behaviour is gravely concerning for JK’s future emotional needs and resilience.

I also turn to consider the matter of parenting capability. The mother has demonstrated she supports the contact between JK and the father, and that she works openly with the Local Authority. Conversely, the father does not. He has concealed communication he has been having with JK, and the omission of that from his statement, and the reference to “limited” contact, was therefore dishonest. As will be observed from the cited passage from my ex-tempore judgment from the 2025 care proceedings, I referred to there not even being green shoots of insight from the father as to the impact of his behaviour on JK. Using that same analogy, I go further in that it demonstrates that there are not even the roots developing underground. He has no insight. He has focussed entirely on his desire to have contact with his son, and his statements do not engage with the potential benefit to JK of the proposed holiday. He has been dishonest with professionals and this court. His parenting capability is significantly impaired.

A further relevant factor is JK’s wishes and feelings, so far as they can be ascertained. In the present case, that exercise is complex. The previous findings made in the 2025 care proceedings, concerning JK’s exposure to the father’s alienating behaviours to a significant degree, form an important part of the context. They mean that the court must approach JK’s expressed wishes and feelings with particular care, seeking, so far as possible, to distinguish his authentic voice from the emotional burden and influence to which he has previously been exposed. This is now even more so given that I have found the father has continued to engage in secretive communication with JK.

The father’s evidence emphasises the importance of giving weight to JK’s wishes and feelings. I accept that JK’s voice must be heard. However, I do not accept the premise that what JK has reportedly said to the father necessarily represents his true and independently formed views. The father himself refers to the “limited supervised time” he has spent with JK over the last 12 months, but that is now known to be untrue given the unsupervised calls and messages that have been exchanged. In light of the previous findings as to the emotional harm suffered by JK, and the analysis set out above about that harm continuing, I am satisfied that JK requires time, space and sensitive professional support to be able to unpick his wishes and feelings and to reliably understand them, as accepting the Children’s Guardian’s evidence it is clear JK is confused, and he may not know what his own wishes and feelings are; JK has not had time and space, and the father has continued to have an intrusive impact on JK. Such a conclusion is reinforced by the social worker’s initial written evidence that JK may be telling each parent what he believes that parent wishes to hear.

Further, the father relies upon alleged threats said to have been made by the mother when JK was younger as the foundation for JK’s present wishes and feelings. Those allegations were closer in time to the 2023 and 2025 proceedings, during which the father was legally represented, yet no findings were made in relation to them. The mother expressly denies the allegations. In addition, she has given evidence, which I accept, as to the steps she has taken to establish and maintain her life in the UK. Against the background of the false narrative previously found to have been advanced by the father, and JK’s exposure to that narrative, the asserted foundation for JK’s opposition to travel is materially undermined.

I therefore consider that the most reliable evidence as to JK’s wishes and feelings is to be found not simply in the words attributed to him, but in his presentation, his behaviour and the evidence of the professionals who have spoken with him. The social worker has properly reported the concerns expressed by JK, and I note she has been his social worker since 2024, but those concerns reflect the same themes advanced by the father. She also identifies the real possibility of influence, which is now even greater given the secretive communications.

I next consider the evidence of the Children’s Guardian in this regard. There is particular value in her evidence because she has known JK through the 2025 care proceedings. In her discussions with him, she was able to establish that he does not object in principle to going on holiday. His anxiety is focused on whether he will return.

I also take into account the mother’s evidence. I accept her account, noting its authenticity that JK had spoken with excitement about the proposed holiday and about contact with family members, including conversations about football, games and plans for the trip.

Drawing those strands of evidence together, I find that JK’s underlying wishes and feelings are that he would like to go on holiday, but that he needs to feel safe and reassured that he will return. In reaching that conclusion, I am listening to JK. I am, however, also seeking to separate his authentic wishes and feelings from the false allegations and narrative which continue to place an emotional burden upon him. If the court were not to do so, there is a real risk that JK’s true wishes and feelings would be suppressed, and that the emotional harm already identified would be perpetuated by relying upon such suppressed wishes and feelings.

I have considered the risk of emotional harm to JK of attending the holiday with the fear he genuinely has of not returning. Whilst it is a genuine fear which JK holds, I find this is an extension of the previous behaviour of the father. Simply because the findings were made in September 2025, it does not expunge the unseen scars left on JK, and it is a slow process in which to heal, and that is evident from what JK has expressed as I have set out above. The ongoing secretive communication has also left the wounds open, and the options for healing have been significantly curtailed by the father’s actions.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I find that the mother has not made previous threats to remove JK from the jurisdiction. I further find that there is no credible evidence of an intention by the mother not to return to the UK at the end of the planned holiday. To the contrary, there is very clear evidence of her intention to return, noting the roots she has here, including the education of JK and the life her daughter has here, in terms of her commencing university and also having a boyfriend living here. Furthermore, the mother has made the application, going about it procedurally correctly. She has not sought to hide matters. All the signs clearly point to the mother simply seeking to go on holiday and then returning for JK to begin a new academic term.

Returning to the potential emotional harm to JK arising from his fear that he will not return, I am satisfied that such harm can be adequately mitigated by clear and active reassurance. JK is an astute child. It will be important for the Children’s Guardian or the social worker to explain this decision to him in an age-appropriate way, to address his anxieties directly and for JK and the Local Authority to be provided with clear details of the travel arrangements. Those steps should assist in reducing his anxiety. The greater emotional harm would arise not from the holiday itself, but from the continued suppression of JK’s true wishes and feelings and the reinforcement of fears which, for the reasons I have given, are not founded in any established risk.

I have also considered the impact of the proposed holiday upon JK’s physical health. Provided that relevant government travel advice is followed and that JK has any necessary vaccinations, I am satisfied that there is no identifiable risk to his physical health. There will also be no adverse impact upon his education, given that the holiday is to take place during the school summer holiday.

A holiday is, by its nature, a change in circumstances, but it is a temporary one. I take judicial notice of the ordinary benefit to a child of time away from routine (although recognising every child is different and some children, particularly neurodiverse children, may struggle in such circumstances), a change of surroundings and relaxed time with family. Holidays can provide the opportunity for happy and enduring memories to be formed. Given JK’s history, and the need for his relationship with his mother to continue to heal, I consider that this temporary change is likely to be beneficial to him. Further, his safe return to the UK may assist him in understanding that his fears were misplaced and may thereby support a reassessment of other beliefs which have been influenced by the false narrative previously identified. In that way, the holiday may contribute positively to the continuing repair of his relationship with his mother.

The issue of how contact takes place with the father would be a further change of circumstances should the holiday be permitted. The Local Authority would not be able to supervise and facilitate it, and that change, particularly in the context of JK having been having regular contact with the father (albeit secretive and unsupervised)

I have a range of powers available to me. In practical terms, however, the decision is a binary one: either JK is permitted to travel abroad with his mother for the proposed summer holiday, or he is not (albeit there is a further decision about duration). Having weighed all of the welfare considerations identified above, I am satisfied that they weigh heavily in favour of granting the application. It is in JK’s welfare interests to have the benefit of a summer holiday abroad with his mother and wider family. Conversely, refusal of the application would carry a real risk of validating and entrenching the fears which JK presently holds. I consider that the holiday has the potential to serve as an important circuit breaker for him. It will provide him with the opportunity to spend positive, relaxed and enjoyable time with his mother and wider family, and to return to the UK with lived experience and memories which may assist in displacing the false narrative and anxieties which have been generated and reinforced by the father’s influence.

In considering this emotional harm further upon JK, and mitigating it, I have considered whether the duration of the holiday should be reduced. The Children’s Guardian’s evidence was particularly persuasive in this regard, in that the court and professionals should look at what the JK would be taken to in respect of the holiday, rather than perceiving him being taken away from the UK for the holiday. Holidays have the real benefit for giving a break from routine and in giving time, space and relaxation as I have already referenced. This is not just a holiday that is proposed but also meeting of maternal family members and sharing experiences. JK will be living with family whilst on the holiday rather than in hotel rooms. The holiday is part of a wider experience which will, in the words of the Children’s Guardian, form part of JK’s memory bank. Arbitrarily reducing the duration of the holiday I find is an unwarranted interference, particularly when balanced alongside the agreed position from the Local Authority and the Children’s Guardian that the mother is well-equipped to manage JK’s needs, including his emotional needs. Furthermore, given emergence of the ongoing secretive communications, it adds weight that there needs to be that circuit breaker to which I have referred.

In order to permit the full benefits of that circuit breaker, I find that there should be no contact with the father at all during the holiday. Whilst this may have a negative impact on JK, the greater harm is likely to arise from the father’s influence and JK’s knowledge that the father does not support the holiday such that he would need to supress any happiness he has on the holiday when speaking with the father. Given JK’s desire to please whichever parent he is speaking to, if JK knows he is to be speaking with his father it may then build further anxiety in him about what he should say, and he may suppress the enjoyment he has had, and then may internalise it; such an approach would be significantly detrimental to his emotional welfare.

The circuit breaker referred to will also enable Local Authority to have time to put in place appropriate measures on JK’s return. However, I do direct that the mother must have weekly check-ins with the Local Authority during the holiday to ensure the Local Authority is kept up-to-date of any relevant matters, noting it continues to share parental responsibility.

Before concluding this judgment, I commend the professionalism and diligence of the social worker, the Independent Reviewing Officer and the Children’s Guardian. Whilst there have been different opinions, they have all expressed matters clearly and underpinned it with evidence and reasons. They have all been reflective and have all sought to promote and protect the welfare of JK. The respective evidence of these professionals has been of great assistance to me. I equally thank and commend all the advocates who have been exceptionally helpful to me during this final hearing. I also take the opportunity to offer praise to the management of CAFCASS, who ensured a Children’s Guardian was appointed exceptionally swiftly such that JK could be represented at this final hearing.

I therefore Order that JK is permitted to go on holiday with his mother on the dates proposed, which can be detailed in the Order. In view of the concerns of the father’s behaviour, and the consequential difficulties of managing contact, I find that there should be no contact between the father and JK during this holiday. There are also concerns about any contact between JK and the father leading up to this holiday, and I am confident the Local Authority will carefully supervise the same so as to safeguard JK.

As a level of reassurance to the court and to the Local Authority who hold a care order, such permission to go on holiday is subject to the undertaking offered by the mother being filed with the court and served on the Local Authority.

Given the concerns raised in respect of the father and his continuing behaviours, it will be a matter for the Local Authority to review the contact which he has with JK pursuant to the care order on his return from the holiday, but there may be merit in appropriate safeguarding and mirroring software on JK’s mobile telephone and emails as a means of ensuring JK is kept safe but balanced against intrusions to his privacy, or for his mobile telephone number to be changed and for it not to be provided to the father. There will also be measures needed in respect of JK’s gaming console. These practical matters will need to be grappled with by the Local Authority.

Finally, given the harm which I have identified, and given the period of time over which it has occurred and has continued to occur, I am satisfied it amounts to molestation of JK to such a level that the court should intervene and afford protection to him. Whilst I note that JK welcomes the contact, and clearly loves his father, he is young and has been exposed to behaviours for so long as previously found, that he is unable to see the harm being caused to him, and as a child it is not for him to spot and understand the impact of that harm. I therefore exercise my powers pursuant to the Family Law Act 1996, section 42(2)(b), and I make a non-molestation order preventing the father from contacting JK, directly or indirectly, through any means whatsoever (including telephone, messaging apps, email, social media and gaming platforms), save for contact which is arranged and set out in writing by the Local Authority. I make this Order for a period of 2 years to enable JK to have time to heal the relationship with his mother and to have a relationship with his father which is safe and not emotionally damaging. This will hopefully enable any recommendations of Dr Cooper to be given opportunity to flourish rather than being hindered.

A copy of this judgment must be sent by the Local Authority to Dr Cooper to inform the ongoing assessment and evaluation.

I do add that it is of fundamental importance for this decision to be communicated to JK. I will hear brief submissions from the parties as to the best method for such communication.