A v B

Child appropriate Summary:

“Both your parents love you very much. They are very different people but they both want the best for you. Your Mum and Dad came to court because they find it hard to agree on things. When they were together your dad was abusive to your mum and treated her very badly. It was not her fault they split up. That is all written in the judge’s decision. That is one of the reasons they find it hard to agree now.

I know it’s hard for you to change between two homes where there are different rules. Your Dad is trying to be the best Dad he can be for you. He likes having things his way and that makes it hard for your Mum. She finds it hard when you come back from your Dad’s. Sometimes when you come back to your Mum’s from your Dad’s people get cross with each other. Your Mum wants you to spend time with your Dad and is doing her best to help you do that.

[Child A] is going to change schools and I hope he can get his head down and fulfil his potential because he has a lot going for him. I know [Child A] wants to spend more time with his Dad but I think he should spend the same time as [Child B] and [Child C]. They are all brothers and should all be treated equally. You are going to stay Sunday nights with your Dad and he will take you to school on Monday. I hear you don’t like the after-school time with your Dad because you are tired and you don’t like that there is not time to go back to his house, so you do not have to go to that if you and your Dad agree that isn’t working.

Otherwise things will stay the same.

I have asked the social worker to speak to [Child B] and [Child C] about which football clubs they want to go to. They should tell her what they want, and then I think it would be good to stick to their chosen club for a while so they can build up that team.

When you’re at your Mum’s house you need to follow her rules about phones. When she says it is time to turn them off and give them to her, you must do that. If you don’t, I think she should give you a brick phone that doesn’t have all the apps on it.

Everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect, even if they do not agree with one another. The social worker is going to try and help your Mum and Dad agree on things like your phone and football and I hope that the social worker can support you to become confident in being the intelligent, funny, and brilliant young people that you all are.”

So today I am concerned with [Child A], and [Child B] and [Child C]. The children currently live with their mother and spend time with their father, and I am very grateful to Mr Baker representing the father and to Mr Breese-Laughran who represents the mother.

The opening positions were that the social worker thought that [Child A] should spend 50/50 time with his father and that the [child B and C’s] time with their father should be extended from Sunday evening on to Monday morning. The parents’ positions were as follows. The mother seeks the continuation of a prohibited steps order, which is opposed by the father. The mother wanted to have supervised contact, or failing that, to stop overnight contact during the week, to have the return of the boys on Monday morning to school from their father’s, and she opposed any extension of [Child A]’s time with his father on a 50/50 basis. The father wanted an overnight midweek Wednesday to Thursday. He wanted a shared lives with 50/50 order for [Child A], and he wanted to extend the boys’ time from Sunday into Monday morning with him.

The mother wanted a specific issue order about the social workers speaking to the boys about their view on football clubs, particularly, of course, [Child B] and [Child C]. The father said that he did not think this was necessary and was concerned that the boys were being influenced by their mother.

The mother sought the attachment of penal notices onto orders and the father opposed that.

The parents agreed a Section 91(14) order would be necessary and proportionate against both of them and the period that they suggested was three years.

I am very grateful for the father giving an undertaking about homework this time last week and he commits to getting it done with the boys when they are with him.

The parents’ positions are now broadly speaking as follows. The father, through submissions, says that he has changed, he is a different man to the one who was involved in the relationship, and the mother submits that he has learnt what to say through positive change and has not made meaningful change at all.

By way of background, I looked at the chronology of this matter and the judgment of Judge Wright on 1 February 2022 was a fact-finding judgment and those findings are clearly recorded on the face of previous orders and I repeat them on my order today. Cafcass gave a recommendation after that hearing that contact should be supervised. Judge Branston heard the matter as a final hearing and he disagreed. He thought that the father should have the children alternate weekends and half the holidays. He did make a Section 91(14) order in relation to the father that ticks out on 27 July 2026.

In relation to these proceedings, the mother made an application for a child arrangements order dated 5 December 2024. The father made an application for an enforcement order dated 3 April 2024. I look at the terms of that enforcement application. He says the child arrangements order had been broken since June 2024 and he sought costs from the mother. He did, in fairness to him, tick the box to indicate that he needed permission to start those proceedings although I do not think that was picked up by the judge on 9 April 2025 and so permission was not specifically granted.

I have a Cafcass safeguarding letter dated 4 April 2025 and they recommend supervised interim spending time with arrangements in a contact centre.

We then have a Section 7 report dated 7 June 2025. In my view and for reasons I will give later in this judgment, that report was unhelpful and did not address the issues which the court required it to address.

Her Honour Judge Atkinson on 12 August 2025 ordered schedules of allegations. The court accepted the social work view on that occasion. There were no concerns about the parenting of the father or the children’s wellbeing in his care and it was recorded that he was going to engage with positive change.

I ordered an addendum report dated 15 March 2025 and I am very grateful to the social worker who is in court who prepared that.

My order of the April hearing in 2025 recorded that the father accepted some of the allegations the mother made about the late return of the children and the criticisms she made of him. He set out his reasoning and justification for some of those matters.

That brings us to today’s hearing and it takes place against the backdrop of the father awaiting a criminal trial in August for which I believe he faces charges of coercive control.

The issues in this case are therefore what school [Child A] should go to. I am very grateful the parties agreed he should X school – even though it would not be either of their first choices for him it reflects his wishes and feelings. The next issue I have to look at is the time the boys spend with their father.

The social worker, when she gave evidence, said she was not concerned that the court had declined to make findings or hear evidence on all the allegations the children and the parents on their behalf, as it were, had made. There was no argument made by either parent that I should call the children themselves to give evidence or indeed mother’s partner, and the social work view was it was not proportionate to do so and she said the issues raised would not stop the children spending time or living with the other parent insofar as the allegation each parent makes to the other goes.

The acceptance of the father set out on page B5 of the supplemental bundle is the factual basis on which I proceed. I have replicated it in today’s order.

In relation to the law, the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration and I have to look at whether making an order for them would be better than making no order at all. There is a presumption that unless the contrary is shown the involvement of the parent in the life of the child will further that child’s welfare.

I remind myself of the no delay principle, that any delay in determining issues in a case is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

I remind myself that the burden of proof is on somebody who alleges something happened; the standard of proof: the balance of probabilities.

I remind myself in accordance with the case of Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 that I need to consider all the evidence in this case. Evidence cannot be evaluated or assessed in separate compartments and the judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to each piece of evidence in context of the other, to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence and come to a conclusion. Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences that may be drawn, not suspicion or speculation.

I have a number of statements in the bundle that are hearsay. That means they have not been tested in cross-examination, and I remind myself of the limitation of that type of evidence and the weight to be attached to it is a matter for me to decide.

I remind myself of Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the fact that children themselves are treated as being victims of domestic abuse where it is found to have happened between their parents, and I remind myself of Practice Direction 12J and in particular the definitions of coercive and controlling behaviour. ‘Coercive behaviour’ means an act or pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation, intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, frighten the victim; and ‘controlling behaviour’ means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and regulating their everyday behaviour among other things.

I remind myself of the case of H-N Others [2021] EWCA Civ 448. I remind myself of the totality of the dicta in that case but particularly highlight for my own guidance paragraph 32, which reminds me that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour is abusive, and I remind myself of paragraphs 51 and 56 and the importance of judges looking at the overall picture to see if a pattern emerges from the evidence. As I explained to counsel, I did not intend to look at every incident and make granula findings but look holistically at the broad picture painted by the evidence. They agreed with this approach.

I remind myself of Lady Justice Macur’s guidance of Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147. Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally-charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against assessments solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate they have done so.

I remind myself of the case law about supervised contact (Re A (A Child: Supervised Contact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749) in which a child arrangements order for indefinite supervised contact and a Section 91(14) order were both approved without defining a mandatory pathway to unsupervised contact.

In Re G (Supervised Contact) [2023] EWCA 1453 the Court of Appeal upheld an order for supervised contact to progress to unsupervised upon the father’s active engagement in therapeutic treatment. Again, a Section 91(14) order was upheld.

Finally, TM v TF [2024] EWHC 2786: even in circumstances where domestic use or threats have been proven, courts often maintain that some form of supervised contact can still be ordered if it is determined to be in the child’s best interest.

I remind myself of the case law in relation to Section 91, and I have looked at the guidance of PD12Q and the Family Procedure Rules and that the circumstances where such an order can be made are many and varied. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and there are some circumstances as set out in paragraph 12Q which are particularly relevant to this case. There is a period of respite needed following litigation, a period of time needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or the other person.

I remind myself of the case law and Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) [1999] 2 FLR 573 and the case of Re A (Supervised Contact) (91(14)) [2021] EWCA civ 1749, in which King LJ pointed out the jurisdiction to make a Section 91(14) order is not limited to a case where parties have made excessive applications, and that the landscape has changed since the case of Re P and there is considerable scope for a greater use of this protected filter in the child’s best welfare interests. I remind myself of the new provisions of Section 91A of the Children Act, that I can make a Section 91(14) order where the person named in the order would put the child or another individual at risk of harm if an application were made. The court should first determine whether to grant leave and whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the making of the order.

I know that both parents are well on notice of the court’s thinking that it may make a Section 91(14) order; both advocates have addressed it and all witnesses were asked about it.

I cannot attach conditions to allowing permission for a new application to be made but I can indicate that if there is a particular issue that needs to be addressed, that a litigant should address that, and unless they can show that they have addressed that particular issue, any further application for permission is unlikely to be successful (that is the case of Stringer [2007] 1 FLR 1532).

Having looked at the law, I also remind myself of Article 8: that the court should not be involved in the life of the family any more than is necessarily or proportionate.

When I look at the evidence I have already highlighted the dangers and weaknesses of hearsay evidence, and of course in these files before me there are things written in social work files from third parties who have not been called to give evidence, and so I weigh that with caution in the balance.

I start by acknowledging (having read Mr Baker’s submissions) the dangers of hearsay evidence and particularly where social workers or professionals cut and paste or borrow on each other’s reports. Mr Baker says his criticism of the Positive Change worker’s report is she refers to issues in relation to which facts have not been determined and he highlights a point where he thinks she has lifted wording from a social work report and cautions me accordingly. I do not think that the exact wording was put to her for the reason it could not be found in court to put the question quickly enough, but I agree in principle with Mr Baker that there is a risk if bits are cut and pasted from social work records that there is hearsay upon hearsay and each person repeating it is further away from the source.

However, it is also, I think, legitimate for the Positive Change worker to consider social work documents, and I was clear when I heard her evidence that she had also reached her own independent holistic view from multiple sources of evidence and most importantly from repeated discussions with her workers and from [Person B], the father, so she had a range of evidence before her when she assessed risks.

It is true that she quotes from [Child E] and previous social workers who have not been called in these proceedings to give evidence. However, she did have the facts that have been found by District Judge Wright and it is not uncommon for facts to be found and then further incidents or behaviour to take place. It is the essence of social work and those working with parents that they look at broad patterns of behaviour, and if you could only refer to an incident after a fact was found by a judge then it would be simply impossible for professionals to do their job and family courts would be in a constant loop of fact-finding. The question is whether the Positive Change worker’ report looks at the big picture and is consistent with other evidence in this case, and in my view it is.

I have already spoken of the Section 7 report in July 2025 which in my view was unhelpful and deficient. It made no mention of Judge Wright’s findings. It made no mention of Practice Direction 12J. It made it clear that the father had not been accepted on Positive Change because he was at the contemplation stage of change and its conclusion at D20 of the bundle was not adequately reasoned or sufficient to assist the court.

I am very grateful to the social worker in this case for a very detailed addendum Section 7 report. She struck me as a very hardworking professional, this social worker, who had spent time getting to know the family. She placed a lot of emphasis on the need for good communication and she was clear she had thought very hard about the recommendations in her report. When I asked her, however, how she had applied Practice Direction 12J (which I named expressly on the face of my order as a factor she must consider) she said: “Can I ask what that is?” I explained further and it is clear she was not familiar with it and that in my view highlights an error of weakness in her evidence. She put a lot of emphasis on hoping the father would change or do things differently and on the shared responsibility of co-parenting but she did not go through the checklist in Practice Direction 12J that looks in more detail at the impact of domestic abuse on a parent and on children. In my view as a result her evidence significantly underplayed the impact of domestic abuse on the mother and how old, entrenched patterns of behaviour can continue even after separation.

The mother gave evidence with dignity and composure. She was overwhelmed at one point when Mr Baker pressed her on some messages that had been passed between someone called John and the father about her and her brother but she came across as a spontaneous and compelling witness. She gave evidence with detail. She did not strike me as someone motivated by bitterness or resentment and she was genuinely struggling to know what was best for her boys. She told me no orders had been made that seemed to make things better and she said she was “stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea”. She wanted the boys to have a relationship with their father but was so clear in her view that when they came home after their time with their father their behaviour was impacted and [Child A] in particular was disrespectful and aggressive. Her evidence was that the father had not changed since the Judge Branston ruling. She wanted him to do so in order for the boys to have a positive world view. She said if he could change it would have a massive positive impact on the boys.

The Positive Change worker was a witness who was calm and had an understated authority. She was balanced and gave [Person B] credit for things he had done well. She did not overstep the limits of her knowledge and expertise. She was clear she did not make a recommendation about these specific children but she could talk about [Person B] and the impact of domestic abuse on children in general. She was clear she did not think [Person B] was going to change significantly from where he is currently and she said he is currently presenting what we want to see of him. He is trying hard to do what he is being asked, she says, but without actually having changed his level of resentment. She says: “I can imagine that comes across to the children quite strongly.”

The father gave evidence calmly. He did not raise his voice and on one level he came across as being very reasonable. He had clearly listened closely to what the mother had said the day before and at times his language even echoed hers as if he was trying to reply to her. For example, he said: “I wish nothing but the best for her. I wish her to be happy and I want to be happy as well” which was very similar to what she wished for him.

However, he did not seem to have heard as clearly as I did that her evidence was she wanted the boys to see their dad. She said: “I would never want to say that they should not see their Dad.” Indeed her whole evidence was trying to find a way for them to see their dad that would minimise the risk of harm she saw for herself. [Person B] said: “Given her stance I am not sure she wants them to have a relationship with me at all and I am not sure why. We have our history but [Child D] knows I’m a good Dad.” One interpretation of that was that it could be heard as emotionally manipulative. He did not give the mother credit for the fact that she does want the children to see him. She has never suggested that contact stops and this statement put emotional pressure on her by saying that: “She knows I’m a good Dad.”

He sees the mother as responsible for [Child E] not wanting to see him, but in my view his own behaviour has played a role in that and the reasons she does not feel able to see him at the moment are complex and not only the mother’s responsibility.

He portrayed himself as someone who was not angry, and open to working with the mother, and although he presented himself on one level as very reasonable and he comes across as very amiable, his evidence kept subtly undermining the mother. So for example when talking about the sanitary towel incident he stressed that he had not been told [Child E] had started her periods, which I heard as an implied criticism of the mother. There was another throwaway comment; he said: “I take the boys out to buy Mother’s Day presents but that’s never reciprocated.” It was those repeated subtle digs that did not answer the question which were a repeated theme of his evidence.

Throughout his evidence he called the children “my children” rather than “our children” and when asked about [Child A] calling the mother a whore he did not address this directly. Instead he replied with a criticism of the mother: “I’m not impressed with that aspect of his home life if I’m frank”, he said. “[Child A] was woken up by a younger sibling and he went downstairs to see his mum, and he saw his mum having intercourse on the sofa. I am not going to make suggestions about what goes on in somebody else’s home, but it involved my son.” It seemed to me that that was an entirely gratuitous and humiliating thing to say in front of the mother and not necessary at all to answer the question that he was asked.

He took a similar approach to the evidence of the Positive Change worker. He says: “I am not going to criticise her; she does her job.” However, he then went on to criticise her for relying on other people’s views and described how one of her co-workers rolled her eyes at the mention of the Positive Change worker. Like Judge Wright I found a tendency in the father to deflect, to give speeches, and to say what he thought I wanted to hear rather than answering the questions directly and he raised many issues that were not in his written statements and overall his evidence was evasive and self-justificatory.

I now turn to the welfare checklist and I look at the children’s wishes and feelings in the light of their age and understanding. I look at the very first Section 7 report that was produced. [Child A] had shared he wanted more contact with his father but later shared he does not want this to impact his school days. He does not want to wake up early if he is staying at his father’s house. “[Child B] and [Child C] would like to continue having regular contact with their father,” writes the first Section 7 report writer. The first report contains an allegation by the mother against the father that he has been telling the children that 50/50 is fair.

[Child A] meets the social worker on 9 March 2026 and there he expresses very clearly that he does not like his current school and he would like to go to x school which is only 10 minutes away from his mother. In relation to his wishes and feelings, in the Section 7 report the writer has very carefully taken time to listen to him and it seems to me that his wishes and feelings evolve. He would like to spend more time with his father, he says initially, perhaps one more day. He explained his father lives further from school and they currently have to be back home on Sundays by 6 PM. He said they could stay until Monday morning. He reported again to her that he did not like his current school but when she met him another time [Child A] said that he would like a 50/50 child arrangement because he feels that would be fairer. This was after the social worker had informed [Child A] that his father had messaged her on Friday saying [Child A] had texted him about how much he hated being at his mother’s home. His wishes and feelings become clearer over the time.

The mother gave evidence she was not sure that [Child A] really wanted 50/50 because he had reservations about the journey time from his new school to his father’s and [Child A] suggested his mother could meet him after school. He also shared with his mother that when he was staying with his father his dad dropped into a location in central london and he went home on his own and he let himself in.

The social worker arranged to see him but when she did so [Child A] said he wanted 50/50 and was adamant he wanted to go to X school. That was consistent with what he told me when we met.

[Child B] was happy with the current arrangements and did not want anything to change and [Child C] would like an extra day with his father.

I look at the children’s physical, emotional, psychological and educational needs. [Child A] is, in the mother’s view, more negative about his school after contact with his father. The primary school provided evidence in relation to the first Section 7 report about the time the children spent with their father and their perceived impact on the children. They said the children appear to be stuck in the middle of ongoing tensions between their parents: “We have growing concerns” they write “over the father’s contact”. “In all child-in-need meetings, except the most recent he has been difficult to engage with. His manner of speaking has been perceived as intimidating, prompting us to request that the social worker’s management or legal team attend the subsequent meeting. Another DSL from the school also attended the subsequent meeting and concurred his behaviour was unacceptable. “The boundaries were clearly alarmed by the social worker and he continued to disregard them…. We observed that the children often appeared tired after weekends with their father. He has mentioned doing multiple activities during his time and it does not seem as if there is a bedroom routine. He has also stated he does not read with them on the weekends and considers it their downtime. The school’s view is that both parents must share responsibility for home learning.”

The evidence clearly chronicles [Child A] becoming increasingly unsettled at his current school and there is a list, sadly, at C42 of his detentions and during the course of these proceedings he has been in school less and less. It is therefore great credit to the parents that they are behind [Child A] in requesting a change of school and that they will support him to get his head down and do as well as he can at X school, although it would not have been either of their first choices. However the mother’s evidence was that [Child A] needs his father’s support in order to do well at school, in that she says that [Child A] does not finish his homework at his father’s and so when he gets home on Sunday night they have to do it or even on Monday morning.

The social worker said she told the father he must do reading with the boys at the weekend and her impression was that he wanted to be the fun dad. That is entirely consistent with what that primary school reported after the first Section 7 report, so I am particularly grateful for the father’s undertaking and commitment to supporting the boys educationally.

The mother at paragraph 738 of the second Section 7 report is worried that the father may undermine [Child A]’s ability to settle at school. She said in the witness box: “I would see messages on [Child A]’s phone referring to his house master as ‘Baldy’ and [Child A] said he had a detention and the father said: ‘Are you going to go?’ [Child A] replied: ‘No’ to which the father said: ‘Then you’ll have to take the consequences.’”

She described a parents evening, meeting the teachers, and she met them first and saw a presentation and [Child A] reported to her that: “Daddy said the presentation was so boring he nearly fell asleep.” There were multiple emails, she said, demanding that [Child A] have a phone contrary to the school’s policy. She said if the father had not made a fuss about the phone it might not have been an issue for [Child A]. The mother was very supportive of the school’s phone policy.

[Child A’s] school themselves have reported concerns about [Person B]’s behaviour. They reported that in October [Child A] urinated on a tree on the road to school and was given an hour’s detention. [Person B] requested the detention be moved to avoid his contact time. He was reported to say inappropriate things at the 4 November parents evening, stating the parents should be grown up enough to meet at the same time, which undermined the mother’s position. The 20 November 2025 records suggest that [Child A] brought in a mobile phone accompanied by two battery banks to school and wireless charging equipment. The device was not a normal looking smartphone in the school report but stereotypically a burner phone. It was confiscated in line with school policies.

Finally, on 14 January 2026 the school received an administrative request change for [Child A]’s name from [Surname A] to [Surname B] and the social worker was very clear in her evidence that that was a breach of the order.

By contrast, [Child B] and [Child C] seem more settled and doing well in year 5, but it seems to me both parents need to fully support their boys at school and not undermine the school’s authority if the boys are to meet their educational potential.

In relation to the likely effect on the boys of any change of circumstance, contact has not always worked well, however, it is an established pattern. That is not to say it will be problem free but it seems to me there may be problems with any arrangement due to the underlying parental relationship.

After school contact from the father’s perspective was not particularly helpful. He says: “The boys do not like it. They ask why we can’t just go home. It’s difficult for me because they’re juggling and they’re expected to find something to do for two and a half hours.”

The mother’s view is that mid-week contact should not be changed to overnight because the father does not do the homework and it may be more disruptive for the boys.

[Child A] wants to change to 50/50, but that makes him different from his brothers. Indeed, his sister and younger half-siblings. The mother says that since spending more time with the father [Child A] needs a couple of days to settle and that is set out in the Section 7 report.

The Positive Change worker thought that things may need to change yet again and it is very hard to anticipate what will happen in the lives of all of these children or indeed their parents. Any change of circumstances for the children and the risks to it and the benefits of it are very difficult to calibrate.

I look at the age, sex and background of these children. I have already referred to the boys’ half-siblings and of course there is [Child E]. Much was said about the father, about his sadness that she does not want to see him and I do think that is genuine and heartfelt, however her wishes about her dad are very clear sadly from the Section 7 report: “I don’t want to see my dad right now. I don’t want to be asked the same questions about seeing him.” She said her dad can get aggressive sometimes. She said she witnessed domestic violence between her parents when she was six years old and she gets a very graphic, detailed report that her mum had arranged to go out with the other mums, she returned at 11 PM and she heard her dad shouting at her mum. That is consistent with what Judge Wright found.

There is a risk where you have got divided loyalties that children align themselves with one parent because they cannot manage the divided feelings and complexity of feelings about both of their parents together, and that is what [Child E] has done. I wish I did have a magic wand to improve her relationship with her father, but in my view giving her space and time and respecting those feelings is the best bridge back to a deeper relationship with him in her own time.

Similarly, there is a risk if [Child A] spends more time with his father he may become polarised towards his father and I think insufficient consideration has been given to what it means for the twins to have [Child A] live separately from them half of the time.

I look at any harm that the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering and the starting point here has to be the findings of Judge Wright. They are the factual basis on which we proceed. Judge Branston, at F126 of the bundle, records very clearly that by the time the matter had come before him the mother remained really very fearful of the father. He says: “The mother remains fearful of the father and anxious whenever she sees a black cab go by.” The mother had alleged before him that the court proceedings were used to continue control over her.

The mother and children of course were, as a matter of law, victims of domestic abuse and the social worker was asked about the harm this caused to them. She did not think the father would harm the children, however in my view they are already, as a matter of law, treated as victims of domestic abuse under Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in their own right. The social worker went on: “If his behaviour to mother continues, this could be psychologically and emotionally harmful.” She said “they would learn that women are not to be respected and it is harmful for future relationships. They might learn to act aggressively with those they disagree with”. She said: “I think that his behaviour to the mother may not change, and if it doesn’t change, in my view that is harmful to the children.” So although she said she did not think the father was a threat directly to the children in terms of emotional abuse (and I agree he would not ever set out deliberately hurt them emotionally) he may do so inadvertently or without being able to stop himself, unless he can change his attitude towards their mother, and that is emotionally harmful for one parent not to be able to support the other or if there is a controlling dynamic that continues.

The evidence from the Positive Change worker is that unless parents are able to step down from escalating conflict, particularly the father, she said, it is hard to see a positive way forward. She also gave authoritative evidence that in general terms, outcomes for children caught in a high-risk and complex separation where one parent continues to abuse the other is negative for all their outcomes, behavioural, emotional and academically. Child to parent abuse is linked statistically to domestic abuse between the parents. “Are children who are victims of domestic abuse are more likely to grow up to become abusers or marry abusers”, the Positive Change worker was asked by the mother’s counsel. She says there is a correlation but it is not of course determinative, however.

She also highlighted that the children are likely to experience the ongoing effect of trauma. Their flight, fight responses are heightened, and they are more likely to err towards aggression or a fearful response, but she says, of course, that can be mediated by general upbringing factors as well. So that means that it is really key for the parents now to address the dynamic between them so that the outcomes for their children can be as positive as they would wish them to be.

I look at the fact that in my view the mother is still struggling with the impact of domestic abuse on her. That is set out very clearly at the most recent Section 7 report. The worker from Positive Change said that the mother became visibly distressed and tearful during conversations about the father. She explained that any form of communication from him triggers significant anxiety, inducing physical symptoms like shaking and panic. She lives in fear of receiving notifications from him on the parenting app and wishes she could control her reactions but is unable to do so.

To what extent has the father changed and understood the impact of his actions on the mother?

The first Section 7 report in 2022 is the starting point for his response to Judge Wright’s judgment. He strongly disagreed with the findings and is waiting for the transcript to consider an appeal. Cafcass has took the view that this response indicated a lack of empathy and identifies that this is a high-risk domestic abuse situation.

The Section 7 report in 2023 shows a shift in his thinking for which I give him full credit. He says he accepts the findings and has attempted to seek out support to make changes and done the Caring Dads programs. Before Judge Branston he had taken time to do some courses albeit they were not domestic abuse related and Judge Branston found that he deeply regretted the past incidents and had learned from the programs he attended that his actions had been unacceptable and he apologised. He says he has learned how to help manage his emotions and he is confident the same behaviour will not be repeated. He takes full responsibility for his actions and blames no one but himself. Cafcass, however, took the view that although it was positive he accepted the findings and attempted to seek out support, the father had not demonstrated meaningful acceptance or insight into the abusive behaviour.

Judge Branston very carefully in his judgment set out his analysis of the risk and he said “the mother does not trust the father in what he has done in this regard and so the court will examine carefully whether a person guilty of domestic abuse may be putting on a show for the court and trying to say all the right things. It is always possible someone is seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the court but the court cannot proceed on the basis that everyone who has been abusive in their relationships is incapable of change”. On that basis the judge rejected Cafcass’s suggestion that there was unmanaged risks in this case of further domestic abuse against the mother or the use of child arrangements to continue to control or to coerce. That judge took the view the father has demonstrated he is capable of meaningful change.

We come on to these proceedings and the positive change reports that have been produced within them. These too are evidence of a changing view on behalf of the father. The first one of 12 February 2026 says he did not contest the findings of fact although he did not name specifics when pressed to do so. The opinion of the writer, the Positive Change worker, was that he cares deeply for his children but he is unable to separate his own need to justify himself and their interests. She goes on: “In my view he’s likely to present to them as a victim of the family courts and the mother and he will need to work to counter this impression with the children.” She is concerned about tit-for-tat thinking.

The assessment they carried out in August 2025 was that he feels unfairly categorised as a perpetrator of domestic abuse and does not wish to attend a DAPP group. So clearly the February 2026 report is a shift from that and I do acknowledge that change in [Person B]. However, the positive change report which is then filed in April 2026, says that: “In my view [Person B] continues to reflect on [Person A]’s behaviour rather than his own and is highly evasive about his past and current abusive behaviour in terms of undermining her as a parent.” It goes on: “In the opinion of the group workers he doesn’t show congruent remorse and he shows ongoing counter-parenting behaviours. In my opinion his conflict around family time and parenting continues to harm the mother through harming her relationship with the children.”

The positive change report dated June this year shows that the father says: “In terms, I was abusive to [Person A], I can hold up my hands to that.” However, he also minimised the extent of his actions, saying: “I didn’t used to come in and beat [Person A] black and blue. It wasn’t like every time I came home from work, the dinner’s not on the table, and I beat her up.” This is very similar to what he said in the witness box. He said, almost like a mantra: “I accept the findings” and a times he was impressively frank and appeared to take accountability: “I was an arsehole” he said, but at other times he sought to minimise it and stressed that there were many happy times in the 10-year relationship.

Listening carefully to his response to being asked about finding 9 by Judge Wright, he said the mother tried to slap him, which is not what the judge found, and could be seen as an attempt to victim blame. Although in my April order he accepts some of the behaviours which was unacceptable and some of the breaches of the order, he always has a “but” or a justification. He said in the witness box at one point: “I don’t like the word ‘but’ but frequently it has been used by him to justify or minimise criticisms of him.

His letter of apology to the mother (which of course was not sent, it was an exercise for reflection) appears to be a really heartfelt acceptance of responsibility and very genuine. However, the Positive Change worker cautions: “I don’t think that this mindset is consistent or internalised”. I agree, because what undercuts his evidence was a repeated reference to the mother being unfaithful to him and, as I have said, these subtle criticisms of her, while purporting to support her, and saying things which emotionally would be distressing for her to hear like referring to her brother’s time in prison.

In my view this lack of meaningful and underlying change is seen in the text to a third party about [Person A] and her brother. These were sent after the football when the father says he had had a few drinks and was emotional, but in my view these show his true views coming through. I am going to read it for the record:

“Just know J is your pal, mate. He’s a grass to sure TBH. If I ever spoke to him I’d rip his head off, because he should have said something to that dumb sister of his to stop me seeing my kids. Cost me over 100K to fight for them and she’s even turned my daughter against me. The mother’s partner slapped my 11-year-old son [Child A] in the face and threatened to slice his throat. Social services called the police, not me. He isn’t allowed to be left with my kids alone now. If I weren’t in court to see my kids it would be a different story and it won’t go forgotten. My family are all aware. They’re waiting for the call. It’s easy for [Person A] to say I used to beat her up. She was cheating with her cousin’s mate whilst on holiday and she’s convinced her entire family I’m some scumbag. J knows me. If he honestly thought I would have beat his sister up, surely he would have had that conversation with me about it, the backwards cunt. He is the one who gives birds a black eye, not me. And TBH [Person A] is a dirty cheat and pushes blame onto me rather than accept that she is the cheating scumbag. Quite simple – narcissist.”

Much was said in the witness box about how exactly this text is to be construed. [Person B] read out the full exchange of texts that came before it and in my view it was clear he raised the mother’s brother first. He raised the talk of the mother, the other person did not raise it, and it is clear in my view that the tone of that text implies that the mother has lied. He tried to explain it away in the witness box but it was not convincing. The thrust of this message is that he is angry and that he is the victim of all of this and I think that is his true view. This evidence is consistent with the Positive Change worker’s analysis that the father sees himself in some kind of competition in which he has to justify that he is in the right and the mother is in the wrong. She said “he came back again and again to what the mother did wrong in his opinion – having an affair” – and he looped around in his evidence to this theme again and again in the witness box. So I am concerned when the social worker gave evidence that this was a toxic relationship that somehow suggested there is a shared responsibility for how things were.

The social worker said the father, in his narrative, said: “I did this, but mum did as well” but that is not what Judge Wright found, and I agree with the Positive Change worker, this is not a symmetrical situation, this is not a toxic relationship, it is one in which domestic abuse has been found and I conclude that the father does not deep down understand the harm that this has caused.

It is also harmful for the children if one parent speaks badly of the other. [Child E] says her father speaks badly of her mother. Against this, [Child A] appears to have been exposed to what has been happening in court as well. The social worker says the boys had never told her that the father was discussing the mother and she would be disappointed if the father told them he had never hit their mum. The father suggested that the children had said things that suggested the mother had shown them court documents although he did not give specific examples. By contrast, the mother gave concrete examples of the things children had said that suggested the father had given them a narrative about what has happened:

“[Child A] said I was a whore. I cheated on his dad. Talked about benefit fraud and my partner not living with us. [Child C] described a finding for the fact-finding hearing saying: ‘How would you feel if someone said that about your dad.’ He doesn’t want them to know what happened to me. I’ve not discussed the fact-finding with them or the court proceedings and I don’t even let them know when I am going to court.”

The narrative she gave in the witness box is entirely consistent with the report that she put in her most recent witness statement of the things the boys had said that appear to have come from their father, so:

“[Child A] called me a whore for having an affair while with the father and told me I was committing benefit fraud and that I lied about domestic abuse I suffered from the father by stating ‘Daddy only pushed you, you made it all up’, and told my partner to fuck off back to his country and said racist comments towards my adoptive father.”

The Positive Change worker suggests it is very damaging for the children not to have a clear understanding of what has happened and suggested that the social worker would be the best person to give the children a child-appropriate narrative. In my very brief summary that is what I have attempted to do. Of course one cannot expose children to the granularity of the findings Judge Wright made but they do need to understand, at a very basic level, where the court took the view the dynamic of this power relationship rested.

I look how capable each of the parents is of meeting the children’s needs, and of course these are both good parents insofar as they meet the children’s basic needs. They love their children. They would never deliberately do anything to harm them, but I do think that in order to meet the boys’ needs particularly they need to have a healthy view of members of the opposite sex, so I turn to the sanitary pad instance.

The father accepts (and it is recorded on my April order) he handed a bag of personal items, including some socks, he says, jewellery and sanitary pads to [Child A], and told him to hand the bag to his mother to give to [Child E]. He denies he instructed [Child A] or his brothers to say anything to [Child E]. Mother gave evidence very clearly: “Daddy says you will need these for your mood” it was said to [Child E]. What she said in the witness box was consistent with her written evidence and the mother was there. She was asked: “Is that something the boys would have done without the father’s involvement?” “No”, she said, “they do not tease her about her periods”.

The father gave a very long explanation of not being aware that [Child E] had started her periods and the reasonable steps he took to get a bin and provide sanitary towels, and I do give him real credit for that. In reality, he said: “I am just a dad trying to give [Child E] what she needs.” He said he had not said anything and “100 per cent” he had not said anything like that. However, listening very carefully to his own evidence, he in the witness box linked [Child E]’s behaviour to becoming a young woman: “she has hit puberty and was becoming emotional”. He explained the incident away saying the twins can be cheeky but it seems to me, and I find, that it is unlikely that boys of their age would link the mood of a woman to their menstrual cycle and in my view it is a misogynistic comment that they made and it seems to me more likely than not that father said something in the hearing of the boys that linked [Child E]’s emotions and her moods and so they repeated it to her on handing her the sanitary towels.

In order to meet these children’s needs they need both parents to be careful not to undermine each other and the Positive Change worker gave evidence that domestic abuse is an attack on the other parent’s ability to parent, so I look at how the father can support the mother in co-parenting. I have already mentioned the school letter at D22 which is their perspective of how the father behaves if he does not get what he wants, and I have mentioned the unilateral attempt to change [Child A]’s name. I have already read the concerns the school have at 7.27 about the father’s behaviour towards them and I have read throughout the child in need meeting notes that there are indications repeatedly that the mother feels undermined by the father. She tells a social worker in the Section 7 report spending more time with his father [Child A] takes a couple of days to settle and he told mum: “I hate you. You’re making dad go through court to see us.”

[Person B] admitted to arriving early at school pick-ups, but he says by way of justification: “I just get there early because I am excited to see the kids”, but that is undermining of the mother who is picking up her younger children at the same time.

The view of the Positive Change worker is that [Person B] still shows tit-for-tat thinking and has difficulty letting go of a conflict.

There is a suggestion throughout the evidence and I do find that the father struggles to take steps to co-parent and not to undermine the mother. The mother said in the witness box: “I feel like everything’s a battle. He does not agree to anything I suggest, and even if he agrees with me he would disagree so he could have the last word. It is exhausting.”

That brings me to the April 2026 incident of which the mother gave a spontaneous, open and compelling account. She said the children had got back from their father’s at 6 PM and they had their phones and it was bedtime. [Child C] handed the phone to [Child A] and said: “[Child A] is going to monitor our phones and give them when we want them, Daddy says.” She was asked if she hurt [Child A]’s wrists and she said: “[Child A] was calling me a whore and screaming at me that I’d “cheated on his dad” and [Child E] shouted at the boys. [Child A] grabbed [Child E]’s hair. [Child A] slapped me. The maternal grandmother arrived. I don’t know how the wrists happened” she said, “but [Child A] was uncontrollable. The maternal grandmother contacted the police. If I was not concerned about [Child A] and how he is behaving” she said, “I would have not had to call the police.” She said: “I wanted the boys to understand they don’t make the rules in my home. It is not OK to hit your mum and to pull your sister’s hair.”

[Person B] deals with this in his witness statements. He sets out his understanding of what happened. He says in the supplemental bundle that on 19 April 2026: “[Child A] contacted me requesting to be collected and showed me an injury on his wrist. In my view [Child A] and his brothers’ behaviour reflects the stress arising from their unhappiness of the current arrangements. [Child A] has stated he has not received an apology for the actions of his mother and maternal grandmother and that he feels unsupported. He reported his mother had grabbed and squeezed his face and maternal grandmother had slapped him. [Child C] also had marks on his arm which he said were caused by the maternal grandmother, nail marks that had drawn blood.” He goes on to exhibit his exchange of texts with [Child A] in which [Child A] shows a graze on his wrist.

In all credit to [Person B], he responds to [Child A] in that exchange of texts in a very neutral way and he reads [Child A]’s texts and tries to calm him down: “Try and calm down, boy. Don’t argue with her. Let’s get some sleep, it’s late. Tell [Child B] and [Child C] to get some sleep too.” Quite rightly the social worker gave him credit for trying to de-escalate in that situation and she also quite rightly gave him credit for having [Child A] in the following week and taking him to school during the tube strike, so that shows [Person B] is able to react in a way that does not undermine the mother.

However, the Positive Change worker explored this incident with him in her work session with him and she was concerned because he spoke of an incident where [Child A] sent in pictures of injuries caused by the mother and he reported this to the group workers that the mother had hit [Child A] and he maintained that in their recent meeting with the Positive Change worker that he believes both the mother and the grandmother slapped [Child A] during this incident based on [Child A]’s account. The Positive Change worker checks with the social worker and could see no mention of the mother hitting [Child A] and she was concerned that this was an instance of the father talking the mother down. [Person B] later told her when they met on 1 June he now accepts that [Child A] did not hit the mother during the incident and said that [Child A]’s behaviour is sometimes difficult with him too.

I think in the witness box the father was given an opportunity to address this head on but he did not address it head on and sidestepped the point, saying that he only heard [Child A] call the mother a whore yesterday.

It seems to me that at times the father is capable of responding in an appropriate way but at times he gets drawn back into this narrative against the mother, as referred to in the group sessions and his conversations with the Positive Change worker. He did not pick up that the boys having their phone was the trigger for this incident and he had an ability to do something about that and to back mum up with her policy on the phones.

In order to meet these children’s needs, these parents need to be child-focused and what struck me about the mother is that she is very focused on bringing up happy young men who would be well settled in the community; she said that more than once. “I tell the boys,” she said, “not to worry about my feelings or dad’s feelings.” Clearly she finds any interaction with the father deeply difficult and so she has got her mother to be on the app for her, but she is clear that she wants the boys to see their father, not least because they blame her if they do not, and so she is putting them before herself. She was very careful to give a description of her understanding of the twins’ feeling about their football club choices and she also said she would want any new partner of the father to get on with the children.

She was concerned, however, the child-focusedness of the father is lacking and she gave two examples: one was where [Child B] wanted to go on a parade, and she gave a detailed account of trying to get his consent for that but the upshot was [Child B] did not go and he returned and said: “Dad said I’m not allowed to go, it’s too busy” and she took the view that actually [Child B] and [Child C] want to go to Y Football Club, but the father will not allowed this to happen out of spite. The father gave a very detailed description of how football teams work and why he did not think Y football Club was the right one.

There was a point where [Child A] blocked the father on Snapchat and the mother said it was because the father told [Child A] he would buy a scooter if he went to a certain school.

The Positive Change worker pointed out that the father in her view was unable to see what was in the child’s interests and to make a separation with his own. “ He gets quite entangled”, she said, “in this sense of competition, and finds it difficult to set the children’s needs from his wish to win in this process”. She said: “In my view there has been a long list of instances I do not think he has had the best interests of the children, which I shared with him. Air tags are tit for tat thinking”, she said. “If I had put air tags on them when they’re with [Child D] it would be seen as abusive.” “I asked him ‘What’s the problem?’ and it kept coming back to ‘Well, it wouldn’t be OK in the other direction.’” Her view was “that this is what is harming the children, it is this context, and this contest. Other things he is worrying about are a very small part of the children’s interests, she said, and the competition is what is driving him on with a lot of things.”

I know that [Person B] really loves his boys, he speaks of them with genuine love, but the thrust of his evidence was how he had been impacted and how he felt and I do think he finds it hard to separate his own feelings from that of the boys.

I look, because the findings of Judge Wright are of domestic abuse, whether there is an ongoing dynamic of control, because that is not parenting that meets the boys’ needs. Much has been said about mobile phones and they have been given to the children by the father and they are a real source of tension for the mother. It is set out at page C123 of the supplemental bundle, where the father writes quite a demanding email to the mother’s solicitor about mobile phones. The email says: “Removing the phones can be considered a form of abuse or harmful behaviour. This needs to stop, full stop.” Judge Branston recorded that the father was going to reflect on his manner of communication but sadly that seems to be falling back into old habits, as does page C131 of the supplemental bundle in which the father communicates, I think on the app: “Taking the phones from the children is theft, especially when done by your abusive partner. The police are aware of this ongoing issue and if needed I will contact them again.”

The mother’s evidence on page E100 of the supplemental bundle is that she thinks this is a way of controlling her (that is in the Child in Need notes) and the mother’s evidence was very clear that the father’s giving the children phones made it hard for her to install boundaries. He called the police when the phones were removed from the children, calling it ‘theft’, although the social worker said the mother had the right to remove the phones and The Positive Change worker’s’s view is that these phones have been weaponised.

When asked if he accepted he reported the phones as stolen he gave the following justification for contacting the police: “When I reported the phones as stolen it was the mother’s partner that took them. He does not have PR for the children at all. The social worker has told him he should not be disciplining them or removing their mobile.” In my view, the father genuinely wants the children to have phones so he can contact them and know they are OK but he cannot understand why the mother perceives it as controlling and undermining of her parenting.

Another aspect of being able to co-parent and meet the children’s needs is to support the other parents in their co-parenting and whoever does that with them, and sadly the mother gave evidence that “the boys used to have a good relationship with my partner but that he has had to take a step back recently”. I do know that the social workers have advised that [Child A] be not left alone with him, and I am not going to make a finding of fact about exactly what happened to lead to that but I do think that the father has done little to de-escalate tensions around the mother’s partner. The Positive Change report of June says he refers to the mother’s partner not as a co-parent but as “that man” and the social worker thought that the incident around The mother’s partner in January was a time of shift in [Child A]’s behaviour when it got worse. The mother did not link it to this. She gave a vivid and convincing account of what happened, that [Child A] gives his air tags to his father and then they are returned to him when he is dropped back with his mother, but [Child A] forgot his air tags and so asked the father to bring them back. He got the air tags and then he said: “The court didn’t order it and the court didn’t say I have to give it back.” My partner said: “Don’t disrespect your mum” and [Child A] said: “Fuck off you bald prick” to him. My partner then said: “If my mum heard me say something like that to her she would have ripped my head off.” The mother gave this as an example of the father undermining her new partner.

The father repeated again and again in the witness box that the mother’s partner had threatened his son, meaning [Child A], and threatened to slit his throat, and this is the phrase that [Child A] uses when talking to the social worker as recorded in the Section 7 report. I did not think it was proportionate to call the mother’s partner and [Child A], and the social worker gave evidence that whatever happened there were no safeguarding reasons the children should not live with their mother.

I will not get to the bottom of what exactly said but what troubles me about the father is he accepts uncritically what [Child A] says. He says: “I’ve no reason to disbelieve my son.” There are always differences of perspective in an emotionally-charged instance like this and indeed like the April one, and the father is not able to stop and consider that his son may have exaggerated, misheard, misrepresented or misunderstood what had happened. He comes in behind [Child A], supporting him 100 per cent, both in this instance and in the April instance. Another example of this is when the father said in the witness box that the mother’s partner stamped or stepped on [Child C]’s shoulder. Having read the Section 7 report, [Child B] thought the incident was not that dramatic, but the father does not have a filter to check himself and consider that the boy’s accounts may not be always the most accurate ones, another way in which the mother feels he is undermining her co-parenting.

I apply now PD12J, and since there have been findings of fact I look at whether the children as victims of domestic abuse and the mother have suffered harm as a consequence of that abuse and I have clearly found that they have and I have to look at the risk of harm they are suffering if a child arrangement order is made. I have to look at their physical, emotional safety, both before, during, and after contact, and I have heard that after contact is a particularly difficult time for the mother when the boys come back, often exhibiting anger towards her. I have to look at whether the parent with whom the child is living, the mother, will be subjected to further domestic abuse by that of the parent and I have found that that dynamic of control continues, even now, post-separation.

I look at the effect of the abuse on the child arrangements for where the child is living and I was saddened to hear that no order in the mother’s view has ever made things better. I do not think there is an easy solution to where the boys should spend their time in this matter. However, it is very clear that the effect of domestic abuse on children is writ large in their behaviour in [Child E]’s decision and in some of the boys’ behaviour and it has affected their relationship with their mother and father, but particularly their relationship with their mother because they do not have an accurate readout or understanding of where the abuse was in the relationship.

I think [Person B] is motivated by a real love for the children but struggles to promote their best interests, and struggles not to see this as some kind of competitive process between him and the mother and I am worried that at times, inadvertently possibly, he is continuing a form of domestic abuse against her. I look at the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom the findings were made, and there is evidence that he does not support the boys in really respecting their mother and he undermines them in some ways during his time with them during contact. I do think that his capacity to appreciate the effects of past domestic abuse and prevent future abuse are limited.

This is a very difficult picture, where the father does not internalise the findings and he has made the mother subordinate, he has controlled her to his way of doing things, by the phones, by the air tags, by his comments made to the children. That may not be conscious but it undermines her nonetheless.

The mother says that: “I don’t think I’ve ever had a good time with any order” and I have to say this is one of the most difficult cases I have ever heard when I come to look at what orders I can make that help this family. “What would be the effect”, I asked, “of keeping things the same?” And the mother replied: “My main worry’s the boys and their mental health. I know he’s angry and has always been angry at everything but I don’t want the boys to think that’s normal.”

I am very disappointed that the Local Authority were not able to offer edge of care work, or youth work, or mentoring, particularly for [Child A]. I disagree with them that the family group conference is an appropriate way of addressing this. What is more appropriate is if there is any youth work or mentoring support, positive male role model work that could be done with [Child A] that he is offered that. I think that many young men face real challenges today and if we want to help these boys grow up to be respectful and good role models and with healthy relationships with women, the Local Authority should consider finding any resource that would help these young boys, particularly [Child A], to do that.

I have no power to mandate these parents to go to therapy. The social worker thought it would be helpful. The Positive Change worker’s was less sure. However, I give permission to the parents to disclose the findings, the judgment of Judge Wright and this judgment to anybody providing therapeutic support for them or indeed the children.

I think it is very unwise for the Local Authority to step back from this family, certainly with the upcoming criminal matter and the change of school for [Child A], so October half term 2026 is the very, very earliest they should even be thinking of stepping back. It is imperative in my view that the schools are invited to the Child in Need meetings and they can set out what support they can offer the boys, particularly [Child A]’s new school, and what, particularly for [Child C] and [Child B], is a transition time. Choice of secondary schools I can see potentially being another flashpoint. I would hope that [Child A] is offered counselling or something positive for him at his new school. I would hope that he is offered a mentor. I would hope that [Child C] and [Child B] get any therapeutic support their school can offer and I would welcome any work that the Local Authority can do with the boys around positive role models, and giving them an accurate narrative of what happened between their parents.

So now, in trying to decide what order to make I balance the options, and I know that more time with their father is something that [Child A] particularly wants, and of course there are advantages to that. His house is less crowded. They would have their own rooms in a space. It removes [Child A] from the mother’s partner dynamic. It is clear that the father loves them and they love him. It is in line with [Child A]’s expressed wishes and feelings and he is an intelligent young man so I weigh that heavily in the balance. However, more time with the father may also have a positive effect. He may need to stop becoming the fun parent and become their homework parent which would only model good discipline for the boys, and he to his credit has given me an undertaking.

Against this, he is, in Judge Wright’s judgment, the abusive parent. He has tried to control the mother through the boys and make her rules in her own home subordinate to what he wants. As the social worker herself pointed out, the domestic abuse against the mother does weigh against her own recommendation. The social worker puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of parents agreeing things – phones, football clubs and all the rest of it – but with the best will in the world they do not have the lines of communication to manage the complexities of week-on, week-off arrangements. All the evidence points the other way. It also overlooks the power imbalance in the relationship, a relationship in which the father wants control, and so giving him more time arguably gives him more opportunities to subordinate the mother’s rules and boundaries to what he thinks is right for his boys.

The Positive Change worker says that the father undermines the mother by being the fun parent and he has not to date done the reading or homework at weekends. I hope that the undertaking changes that. The social worker says it is not an easy recommendation and she has to trust the parents to work with court orders. However, the father has not been working with court orders, we see that in the name change, we see that in the 18 things he accepted that he could have done differently on the face of my April order.

Mother says when she heard [Child A] stayed with his father for a week [Child A] told her he had to make his own way home from school. I do not know if that is true or not but what is true is the father does have to work and he did not come with a thought-out set of proposals about how [Child A] would fit into his need to earn money.

The mother was concerned about midweek contact and she says, time and again: “I’m concerned about the time they spend with him.” If they spend more time with their father they have a longer journey to school. He is not as local to school.

In relation to Sundays there is a good argument for changing the Sunday drop-off to a Monday drop-off because that Sunday return is a flashpoint in the mother’s house. She gets the children back tired without their homework done and if we drop the children to school with the father on Monday morning he would need to make sure their homework was completed, and it cuts out that long journey on Sundays and gives a more relaxed end to the weekend. Against this I balance that more time with the father on the mother’s view gives him more time to assert his views and influence, which has not always been positive on her ability to parent the boys.

I look at the mother’s suggestion of supervised contacts. In principle I think the level of abuse and the lack of change would be capable of justifying supervision as a proportionate measure. It would make sure the father does not denigrate the mother. It would stop any counter-narrative that is anti-mother and it would be sure that the children are given an accurate readout of what happened in the parents’ relationship and are not given a one-sided analysis. Against this, the boys have not had supervised contact for years. Looking at their ages I think it would be really hard for them to have a third party around, and there is no family member who can fulfil that role, and to start now they would probably find very odd and potentially push back on it, which would be counterproductive. The need for that contact supervisor to be paid for, since there is no family member, is prohibitive.

Above all, there is no route out of a supervised contact order, which makes it a very difficult order to make on an indefinite basis.

In my view the needs of the children are best served in the following way. The order will state that they live with their mother and extending their time from the weekend to be as Monday brought back to school by the father in time for school registration. I will provide there may be further or other contact in writing if the parents agree it between them, but that must be agreed in advance in writing and not on the say-so of one parent.

The conditions to contact remain the same. It has always been the condition of contact, and it remains, that neither party shall speak ill of the other or their family or refer to them in derogatory terms, either in the presence of the children or within the hearing of the children.

The arrangements with the paternal grandmother remain the same and I am very grateful to counsel for drafting that.

There is a specific issue order that the children’s name is [Surname A] on all appropriate documents and nobody is to change that unilaterally.

I do make a specific order that the social worker must speak to [Child C] and [Child B] about their choice of football clubs in the light of the spending time arrangements in this order and if they express a wish to change clubs, and it is their wish, this in my view should be actioned by 1 September for the new term. Thereafter, the children must stay enrolled in their current team or teams for a year in order for them to settle and develop as team members.

I continue the prohibited steps order that the father is prohibited from retaining the children for longer periods when set out in the order and must return the children at those times set out in the order. He must not encourage, allow or suggest anybody else to retain them for longer periods. I do attach a penal notice to this paragraph.

I know that Mr Baker has raised how this is consistent with the Section 91(14) order. In my view they are not incompatible. The rules of the order need to be followed and what a prohibited steps order is basically saying is: follow the order. There have been breaches. They are small but they are frequent and the cumulative effect of these breaches of past orders mean that this prohibited steps order is both necessary and proportionate.

In relation to the Section 91(14) order, I make it in relation to both parents. For any Section 8 order they need my permission until 18 June 2029. In addition to this, the father may not make any application for an enforcement order until 18 June 2029. So that means the mother may make an application to enforce; the father may not, without my permission. That is because if the order is breached I do think the mother needs the ability to bring it back to court. That is because in the accepted admissions made by the father he accepts a number of breaches and there is no justification for that.

In relation to Section 91(14) the social worker said that this was consistent with the child’s welfare to have a break from litigation. The Positive Change worker agreed that litigation does not allow things to de-escalate or settle. The mother said that she would consent to such an order unless of course she needed to make an urgent application, and the father did not oppose it. I do think that there is a need for a break from litigation. The order is not a bar on anyone coming back to court but I do think there needs to be time for things to settle and de-escalate and for the message to be sent to the boys: “This is the arrangement, we are going to get on with it.”

I do hope that the parents will do the positive change co-parenting work they have agreed to. I do not know what will happen at the criminal trial. That could be a cause of a material change that brings things back to court, as could any safeguarding-based recommendation of a social worker. That is to say, if something occurs that the social worker thinks mandates a change in the order, that could be a change of circumstance in which I would allow proceedings to start again. If any application is made by the parents within the next three years I will look at it on the paper and I will not give the other parent notice of it unless I give permission for the application to proceed.

In relation to phones, I am not making an order about phones but I do express the view of the court that it is not appropriate for [Child B] and [Child C] to have smartphones when they are younger than 12 years old and the mother may if she wished provide them with a brick phone before they turn 18 years old if they do not give the phones back to her when she asks. I know that much has been said since I last saw you about a social media ban for under-16s, and my view is (and of course I would say this, I am a judge) if the law is changed so that there is no social media for under-16s I would expect the parents to both abide by this and ensure that their children do so too.

I have found it is incredibly difficult to know what right orders to make for the boys but I do hope sincerely that this order is better than making no order at all and that the parents have a degree of space and time to reflect, for things to settle down, and that [Child A], [Child C] and [Child B] continue to grow into the intelligent, funny and brilliant young people that they very clearly are.