F v R & Ors

From 12 to 15 December 2006 and on 15 January 2007, I heard contact and residence applications made both by the Applicant father, 37 year old F, and the Respondent mother, 30 year old R. They relate to their 2 sons, D and N. They were born on 24 January 1998 and 19 April 2001, and are respectively 8 and 4 years of age

The parties were together from 1996 until July 2005 when the mother effectively brought their relationship to an end. The father had purchased a house in Mexico earlier that year. In October 2005, after he had stayed there for a month or so, the father proposed that the children should spend half a year with him and half a year in England with their mother.

The mother feared that the father would take the children to Mexico. Both parties started proceedings in October 2005. There were a series of hearings in the Northampton County Court before the case was transferred to the High Court in March 2006. This was because of the international aspect of the case and quite possibly the aggressive and confrontational attitude of the father who has acted in person throughout.

Following the separation the father had contact with the 2 children until the mother obtained an order suspending that contact in February 2006. He has only had supervised contact on some 7 occasions since then.

Before I come to my findings it may be helpful to set out shortly the parties case as it was at the beginning of the hearing. I shall then shortly state my conclusions before setting out my findings and a summary of the evidence that I have heard.

The present position is as follows. The mother lives with the 2 boys at an address which has not been disclosed and to which she moved in September 2006. The father lives with his partner, a Mexican national, at his home in Mexico. He has presently rented a property in Beckenham, Kent. He has been working here as an IT consultant.

He says that the best solution for the children is for them to spend half the year in Mexico with him, attending a local school. The other half of the year they would spend with their mother. This was his original plan in October 2006. By this means they will have the benefit of spending a significant time with each parent and the advantage of both cultures.

It is agreed that the boys want to see him and that he has a warm and affectionate relationship with them. All this is clear from the supervised contact. There is therefore no need and no justification for supervised contact in the future. He has no intention of taking the children from their mother.

There is no evidence which should prevent him having a full relationship with the boys. The mother has repeatedly lied about him. Any adverse remarks about him in the CAFCASS report, the assessment of the supervised contact, and the Guardian report are based on those lies. They are therefore misleading and not to be relied on. The same applies to his plea of guilty to charges of harassing the mother.

During their relationship and since it ended the father has sought to control her. When this is prevented, he has reacted in a disproportionately angry way to her and to all who have opposed him. This has affected her and the children.

She accepts he has not used physical violence to her or the children, with 2 exceptions relating to N. The first was a minor matter when he held N’s mouth closed to make him eat his food. The second occasion in April 2005 was more serious. He considered N had not cleaned his teeth properly. He proceeded to scrub N’s teeth so hard that it made him scream and caused his gums to bleed. That was a factor in her decision to end their relationship.

However her main complaint is the father’s behaviour. From the time he returned from Mexico to find that she had left the home, he has shown such hostility that, with her fear he would abduct the children, she spent 6 months with them in a refuge.

Despite proceedings continuing for over a year, his attitude has not relented. He has treated all who he sees as opposing him either by putting pressure on them, or by reporting or complaining about them at will. This has included her solicitors, the childminder, Judge Mitchell, the children’s school, the first Guardian Mrs Andrews Trail, and the contact centre at Stephen’s Place.

The details include –

All this has taken place against a background of threats and abuse through emails directed at the mother and her solicitors which has continued with unusual intensity up to the hearing. The children do wish to see him. He has shown affection to them and skill in entertaining them. But he has not acknowledged nor understood the harm that he has unintentionally caused them by his behaviour. It shows no sign of changing.

It means that there is almost no prospect that the parents could organise contact without the children being exposed to the father’s animosity. They have already suffered harm as a result of it. It will continue unless prevented. The only way that this can be achieved is by ensuring contact is supervised.

Furthermore there is evidence that he has tried to obtain passports for the children contrary to the court order. Together with what Ms Andrews-Trail heard him say as he left court, his proposal to remove the children as reported by his aunt, and his anger and frustration at being prevented from seeing the children means that there is a serious risk that he will take them to Mexico. It is not met by his reliance on Mexico being a signatory to the Hague Convention, given the great distress that would be caused to them if removed and the difficulty for the mother in first tracing them and then having to take proceedings. Such are the risks that contact should be strictly supervised.

The mother was represented by Miss van Spall, the Guardian by Mr Coleman. The father has not been represented though he consulted solicitors at an early stage. He has had the difficult task of representing himself in a matter where his feelings and concerns have been obvious. He has done so with general politeness to the court whilst making his views clear on most matters.

The case was originally listed for 3 days. I heard from Miss Iwi of Stephen’s Place, the father, Mr Andrews-Trail, the mother, and Miss Weldon. The papers run to over 1000 pages. They include some 450 pages of emails between the parties. Even then the father believes that documents important to his case have not been included. However it is not likely that they would materially change the picture shown so clearly by the father in his messages and by his conduct.

The father has disputed much of the evidence. Apart from the mother, the evidence in support of the mother’s case backed by the CAFCASS Officer, Ms Andrews-Trail, Miss Iwi who witnessed contact sessions and the Guardian Miss Weldon is overwhelming. The father’s animosity to the mother, and his aggression to and contempt of anyone who does agree with him is quite remarkably high. He lacks almost all insight into the consequences of his behaviour. Though he deeply loves his 2 children and could potentially have a relationship with them to their great benefit, he has single-mindedly put that at risk. He has not accepted nor been able to understand why there should be a genuine risk that he will abduct the children. It is difficult to see how there can be in the foreseeable future any ongoing relationship between him and the children until he has begun to come to terms with what he has done and how he has unintentionally caused harm to the children. I shall approve an assessment of him with which the mother will also join in to assess the level of risk that he poses to the children.

The facts as I find them to be are shortly as follows. The parties started living together in October 1996. From early 2002 their home was in Northamptonshire. The father was an independent IT specialist, earning about £60,000 a year. The mother worked, latterly in a bank. The relationship was one where the father largely controlled the mother. It ended in July 2005. It was the mother’s decision.

The father became angry when he was told of the mother’s decision. He immediately told the mother that she had to pay half the household expenses in future though she was not working. It also led him to change his life style.

The parties had purchased a holiday home by the sea in Mexico in early 2005 for £30,000. The father says it was so they could spend half the year there and half in the UK. Following the breakdown of the relationship, the father went there in September 2005. On his return at the beginning of October 2005, he told the mother he was going to live there permanently. He wanted the boys to be with him for 6 months of the year, the other 6 months being spent with the mother. The mother did not agree. The father then said that he would take the children to Mexico anyway. Fearing this, the mother took their passports to a solicitor.

On 7 October 2005 the father applied to the Northampton County Court for a parental responsibility order and the return of the passports. He also sought permission to take the boys to Mexico for a holiday from 17 to 24 October. He wanted both his and the mother’s passports held so the mother could not take the children to Kashmir where she had family. The same day he turned up at the children’s school and tried to take the boys out.

On the same day the mother applied in the Northamptonshire Family Proceedings Court for a residence order and an order preventing the father taking the 2 boys to Mexico. On 11 October the father told the mother she was a danger to the children and herself. He would have her assessed. He would have the boys taken away because she was not a fit mother.

Both applications came before the County Court on 14 October 2005. The mother was granted a residence order in respect of the two boys, and the father was granted parental responsibility. The father was given permission to take the two boys to Mexico for the proposed holiday on undertakings and provision of a surety of £5000.

The father went to Mexico with the two boys. Whilst he was away and without notice, the mother moved out of the former home to stay with friends near by, taking clothes and household goods with her. There were considerable difficulties between the parties on the father's return on 25 October. It started with the mother going to the airport to pick up the father and the boys on their return form Mexico on 25 October, the day he had undertaken to return them to the mother.

He became angry when she would not discuss the children returning to Mexico at Christmas. On arriving at the former home, he became aggressive and removed the mother's car keys. When she tried to take the two boys to the new home, there was a scene. The children became upset. The father called the police and reported the mother for trying to abduct the children. After speaking to his solicitor, it was agreed that the mother could take the children, provided that he could visit at 7 p.m. They were by this stage very distressed and screaming. The mother was not able to take them.

In breach of his undertaking, the father did not return them until seven o'clock the following morning. He says this was on police advice. I find he had created an upsetting situation and could without difficulty have returned the children if he had wanted to.

On 26 October he said he would return at five o'clock. He wanted the children back. If he could not have them, he would break the door down. He had given D a mobile phone. He told him to have it with him at all times; if he did not answer, the father would go to the police as the mother would be hurting them. The same day he applied for a residence order.

He returned at 4.00 p.m. and started banging on the front door. He shouted that if the mother hurt the children she would regret it. The mother phoned the police. They told the father to go. He returned at 9 p.m. He shouted accusations through the closed door. He said she was denying the children proper health care. The police again told him to leave.

On 28 October the father told the mother that he would go to her solicitors and punch them. The same morning he visited them. He shouted and was abusive. Fearing for their safety, the staff telephoned the police. He was warned an hour later by the police not to continue with this behaviour.

The solicitors subsequently told the mother that they did not feel able to deal with the father. The mother had to change solicitors. In the meantime the father repeatedly called the mother as well as visiting her home unannounced.

On 29 October the father was arrested for harassment. He had been warned twice before. He had parked his car opposite the mother‘s home with his headlights shining on the house for more than an hour, though he denies this. He also continued to phone her. The mother was by this time worried that he would remove the children. She felt trapped in her accommodation and very frightened.

On 31 October the mother applied without notice for orders against the father. She was granted orders preventing him from attending the children's school, attempting to obtain their passports, or pestering or harassing her. She felt that the father had placed intolerable pressure on D, but she still wanted the father to have contact subject to precautions.

The mother through her new solicitors offered the father 2 hours contact on 3 and 6 November via a third party. Negotiations started. The father accused the mother of making ludicrous claims and false statements designed to influence the court. It was the beginning of a virulent exchange of messages on the father’s part. It continued over the following year where his views of the mother and those advising her are made clear. They did not moderate in their tone. It was an attitude adopted by the father in respect of anyone with whom he disagreed.

It began early. On 6 November the mother’s childminders were seriously worried about the father’s attitude. He said he had no intention of bringing the children back at the agreed time but intended to do so later. When they removed his car keys, he reported them to the police for abduction. Later he said that if the mother used them again, he would apply for their childminding licence to be removed. By then there had been 40 messages between the father and the mother’s solicitors, mostly from the father. On 3 November, on discovering that the mother had been working, he had reported her to the benefits agency and to legal aid.

He accused the mother of dictating to him. Her plan was to hurt him as much as possible. If that meant her hurting the children as well, it seemed to make no difference. The same day he said that he was returning D’s phone to him. If the mother attempted to take it from him, he would report her to the police for theft.

The length and nature of his calls were obsessive. He repeatedly raised the topic of her contributing to the mortgage whilst at the same time providing no support for her which has continued.

The parents subsequently reached agreement on contact at court on 10 November. The father was to see the children on alternative weekends and after school each Wednesday. Further difficulties soon arose.

When the father returned the children on the 18 November 2005 half an hour early and the mother was out, but someone else was present, the father accused her of not caring about the children. He said he would return the matter to court so that the mother could explain her actions. Shortly afterwards when she left clothes for D on contact, but less or none for N, he said that this was further proof that she was unfit to care for the children.

He described her solicitor’s actions as disgusting. If he had been able to attend the school, he would have learned of the mothers appalling misconduct. “It is clear that your client is not fit to be charged with the care of my children.”

On 18 November he said he would report the mother’s solicitors to the Law Society for telling the mother not to include appropriate clothing. On 30 November he was told that D would not be coming to contact because he had just had a tooth removed. The father’s response was to say that the mother was in breach of the court order, and he was applying for a warrant of her arrest. He was not content with that. 20 minutes later he added that N who was with him may be feeling unwell and may be too ill to return. The truth was that he had no he no symptoms at all. It was a purely retaliatory gesture by the father.

He made it clear to the mother’s solicitors that she was to attend a hearing on the following day. His feelings about her are graphically illustrated. Apart from saying that she abused the children in which her solicitors colluded, he said –

“I will not allow your lying cheating deceitful client to abuse my children in this way. She is a disgrace and quite clearly not fit to care for my children.”

Long emails of complaint from the father continued. On the 13th of December 2005 directions were made by His Honour Judge Mitchell. They included a request for a CAFCASS Report. On 18 December he emailed the mother’s solicitors again expressing his view of the mother –

“I don’t doubt your client will make numerous unfounded claims regarding this weekend. To be honest, I’m past caring. Your client is so insignificant that her lies are a complete irrelevance”.

Further orders were made on 20 December 2005 preventing the father from attending the children’s new home. The father tried unsuccessfully to appeal this last order. On 20 December he gave notice that he intended to call D as a witness to prove the mother’s baseless accusations of harassment.

On January 17 2006 he described the Northampton judiciary as not sane and the mother’s solicitors as disgusting. A little later he said they made baseless allegations, and used the situation as a cash cow. He accused them of making threats which he would report to the police if they continued.

In February he said her solicitors considered perjury as acceptable. They and the mother had committed criminal offences on 3 occasions. They had attempted to obtain funds from Legal Aid by deception.

“Your client is a manipulative, disgusting excuse for a human being. She abuses my children mentally and physically and by the fact that you know this and do nothing makes you just as culpable.”

His reaction to being referred to court orders was to say on 4 February that he was not interested. Two days later, when making arrangements to have contact with the boys that week, he said that if the mother tried to interfere, he would have her arrested. When the mother would not let him have copies of the children’s’ birth certificates, he threatened court proceedings describing her as stupid. In March he called the mother a perjurer and well known child abuser. He wanted her committed as she could not separate fact from fantasy. Asked to provide photos of his home in Mexico, he said copies would cost £250 a picture.

The mother applied 2 days later to suspend contact and for an order preventing the issue of a witness summons in respect of the children. The orders were made on 28 February 2006. There was to be one period of contact to be supervised by CAFCASS.

There then followed a series of events which led the mother, supported by CAFCASS, to move with the 2 children to a refuge on 1 March 2006 -

On 8 March the father that he would seek to have the mother committed to prison for not answering telephone calls he made to the children. He accused her solicitors of sending stupid and patronising emails. On 9 March he wrote in threatening terms saying that, if the mother continued her abusive behaviour, he would ensure only the he would ensure that the children were removed from her care. He made a series of calls to the mother at this time, she estimates a 100, with threats of arrest and imprisonment and hoping she would die.

On 10 March he wrote to her solicitors –

“Do not threaten me. You will do as you are told you disgusting excuse for a human being. My children's phone had better be on, on Sunday. Otherwise I will turn up on the doorstep. Don’t think I do not know where your client is.”

The mother was phoned anonymously the same day “I have made a call and I are going to have you raped and killed.” The mother I accept recognised the speaker as the father, though the father denies it. She had already received earlier calls from him, in which he described her as a fucking whore, and hoped she would die.

Also on 10 March events were unfurling with the British Embassy in Mexico. Emails obtained during the trial show that on that day the father applied for replacement passports for the 2 children which he said were lost, the boys were in Merida (where he lived), and due to travel on 14 March. They were not issued because of a stop which was in place.

Mr Colman rightly describes the father’s evidence on this matter as evasive and bluster. I was not impressed by his attempt to say the message was about photos though that is what in one email was said to be the subject of it. It is plain that it was a deliberate attempt by him to obtain duplicate passports for the 2 boys. I am deeply concerned that he should not accept his part in a clear attempt to obtain additional passports for the children in order to take them out of the jurisdiction in breach of court orders. That and his other actions and attitude make the mother’s fears of abduction wholly justified. Where trust is of such importance, the father must not be surprised if the court takes such matters seriously.

I tried during his final submissions to point out what it appeared the emails were about. His response was repeatedly to focus on the word ‘photo’. To support his case he accused the mother’s solicitors of deliberately doctoring the emails. I reject that without hesitation. It is a very worrying insight into the father’s attitude.

On 13 March 2006 the mother obtained an order preventing the father from seeking to discover where she and the children were living. There were further abusive messages to the mother’s solicitors from the father. On 15 March the father complained to the LCD about Judge Mitchell.

At a hearing on the 31 March 2006, the two boys were made parties to the preceding and the applications were transferred to the High Court. The abuse tone by the father continued. On 5 April he told the mother’s solicitors that, if presents he sent via them did not reach the children, he would have the police investigate the firm for theft or start a private prosecution. He made threats over the mother’s use of a car he said his company had paid for. It included seeking an order for her address to be disclosed.

He complained about the position and report of Ms Andrews-Trail. He said it was biased and showed contempt to him. She had filed a report virtually written by the mother. It was full of errors. She had manipulated the position and obstructed his relationship with the children. She had told monstrous lies. He sought her removal.

Between 19 April and 25 May 2006 the mother had 9 grossly abusive and threatening calls from the father which she had transcribed from her mobile phone. They are recorded at B139 – 140. In one he said he did not mind if she got him locked up for 10 years. He also described Judge Mitchell as an abusive fool who had been paid by her solicitors. The father’s reaction is to deny that he ever left the messages. I am in no doubt he is wrong. The consistency with a series of others both before and after are strong correlative evidence.

During this time the father was also pressing the children’s school for information about where they were. His confrontational manner of corresponding with the mother’s solicitors did not ease up. Interlocutory orders were made by Ryder J. on 2 May 2006 and by me on 5 July 2006. In the light of later events, it is noteworthy that before me the father agreed not to make derogatory remarks about CAFCASS and to pay £400 per month to the mother. No payments were ever made.

In July 2006 the father pleaded guilty to harassing the mother. He received a community sentence. He told me that he was appealing the decision. He only pleaded guilty because the police said that, if he did not do so, his bail would not continue and he was due to leave for Mexico the next day. I do not accept that explanation.

On 18 July he made more accusations that the mother was a liar. Threats to have her committed to prison for contempt followed in the same pattern as before. There were then wholly unnecessary emails by the father about the use of any money the father might send. It borders on the absurd; the patience of the mother’s solicitors in response remained as admirable as it has been throughout. Again the father argues that the solicitors would not accept the money. I do not repeat the messages they are so clear. He was not prepared to meet his agreement.

In August the father queried the mother’s bizarre paranoid behaviour. If it was getting in the way of her care, she should be advised to be assessed before the court sectioned her, views he repeated. On 28 September the mother he said was an abusive excuse for a human being who was abusing the children and a paranoid schizophrenic. In October he wanted the mother committed to an institution. In November he said her solicitors were well known for lying, their word was worth nothing.

It is against this background that the father told me in his final submissions that he had changed, that his adverse remarks about the mother had been made months ago, I believe he said 6 months ago. I reminded him of these last remarks so close to the hearing. He insisted he had changed.

Supervised contact took place on 6 occasions between August and December 2006 at Stephens Place for reports to be drawn. The result of the court orders has been that the father has had contact with the children only 7 times since it was suspended in February 2006.

It is against that background that I turn to the expert evidence and that of the parties. It will be evident that I have accepted the evidence of the mother who maintained a calm demeanour in the face of the father’s questioning. If she has exaggerated it is not to significant extent.

The father will not appreciate how unusual it is that after all the abuse and hostility, she wishes the 2 children to have a relationship with their father. I consider that genuine and a major hope for the future if the father’s attitude can change.

In her report of March 2006, Ms Andrews-Trail stated that the hostility of the father towards the mother, and anyone who did not agree with him had caused the mother and the boys to be placed in a refuge. She considered that D was angry, unsettled and anxious. N was also unsettled and anxious. The mother was concerned that the father was drawing the children into the disputes between her and the father. This had been openly accepted by the father in court on 28 February. It had led the mother to seek supervised contact.

On the same day, Mrs Andrews-Trail had heard the father when he left court say that he would have to resolve matters in another way. About the same time an aunt of the father’s had read an email from him over the phone to her. The father had written that, if the mothers got the order she had applied for, he would have the boys on the plane to Mexico by the weekend. It was Ms Andrews-Trail conclusion that the father was losing control, and more likely to follow through such a threat.

Staff at the refuge had reported to her a conversation between the father and D, described as horrendous, when he was asked to search the telephone to make sure it was not being taped. It was followed by his father making negative statements about the mother’s ability to care for him. The father was said to have been abusive to the mother when she intervened on the telephone call.

She considered that the mother had been reasonable given the conduct of the father. The father alleged that the mother physically abused the boys, constantly lied to them, and driven a car with them in without headlights in the dark. All this justified removing them from her care. He did not accept any responsibility for the present situation, but put the blame on anybody he felt had a different view from him.

During the contact which she observed, the father was warm and attentive to the needs of the children, and they are obviously enjoyed the time with him. However, she considered that the relationship between the parents was an abusive and controlling one by the father. His hatred and obsessive behaviour would have a serious impact upon the emotional and other needs of the children.

She regarded the mother as a caring and sensitive person. D was a sad and confused boy, while N was unsettled by the changes in the family. D needed a supportive relationship with both parents in order to value himself and cope with the situation. However, unless the father undertook a significant change in his behaviour, she was seriously concerned about the long-term situation on the boys’ development. They had witnessed significant hostility between their parents. She recommended a psychological risk assessment for the father, and that all contact should be suspended until that had been done.

After filing her report, she reported on further incidents involving the father. He had repeatedly shouted at her on the phone, demanding that she changed her assessment. He referred to as stupid, unprofessional, incompetent and a child abuser. He said he would have her name put on the register, unless she changed her views. She found his remarks to be very undermining and draining. She supported the proposal for accessed contact at Stephen’s Place.

In evidence she said she was involved in the mother’s decision to go with the boys to a refuge followed an occasion when the father contacted their school which I have set out above. She had tried to listen to the father, but she had found it difficult to get a word in. He regarded her as immature, ignorant, and rude. He did not believe that the letters that she had written from the children had come from them. She had not understood that the boys’ school had agreed to them spending six months in Mexico anyway for more than the first year. It was a controlling relationship between the father and the mother. He was unable to see that there was any form of abuse, and he lacked any insight.

At court after she had given evidence, she was shown the report from Stephen’s Place. She was surprised by it. She had hoped to see more change from the father, and that he would be working with that organisation. It really confirmed everything she had felt. She had no criticisms of their recommendations.

There were periods of supervised contact, each lasting two hours on 30 and 31 August 2006, 4 and 5 October, and 4 and 6 December. In addition, there were three contact meetings with the father, and after contact on three occasions as well as at the end of the 6 sessions. Miss Iwi, who gave evidence, was present at the pre-contact meeting, three of the supervised sessions and at most of the other that meetings with the father. She produced a 40 page report on 8 December 2006.

She has been involved in the field of domestic violence for 15 years, written a manual on the topic, prepared risk assessments, and now manages the Stephen’s Place Children's Centre. She used the term domestic violence to include abusive behaviour.

The father wished for other staff who had taken part in the assessment be called as witnesses. Ms Iwi explained that it was her role to report on the sessions that had taken place. In all instances, she had spoken with the supervisors when she was not present. It would create problems at the centre if they were to come.

I was not satisfied that there were any good reasons for them to be called. There was nothing new to learn given Miss Iwi’s comprehensive approach, and it was too late. I refused the father’s application made at the hearing. I was influenced in part by the fact that the father wished them to be called to establish that, at the first session, one of the children had sworn. This was denied by Ms Iwi, but its importance I regarded as minimal compared to the overall effect of the sessions of themselves.

She said there were many positive aspects to the father's contact. He managed the children's behaviour. He set boundaries for them. He was firm, and never became enraged or abusive. He praised the pictures they brought with them. He engaged them well and showed skill to keep them interested in the activities he brought for them. They were age appropriate and fun. He offered much physical affection. They appeared to be very bonded with him and were keen to see him.

There were also deficits. He corrected their regressive behaviour in a manner which suppressed their self expression. He failed to distinguish topics on which they might feel anxious from others which were more benign. Whilst the children showed evident pleasure at seeing their father, they were also anxious. Thus they had mixed and contradictory feelings about contact.

She considered that he had shown much hostility to the mother. He described her as a practised and accomplished liar, who continually lied to the court, and everybody else. He did not accept feedback that might lead him to give up the hostility or his wish to control others. He was not open to considering the children's needs, for instance wanting them to speak in court against their mother.

He was unable to see the difficulties for the children attending at two schools and spending six months with each parent, who were in conflict, brushing such issues off. He did not appreciate how confusing and stressful it would be.

It led her to conclude that he only considered their needs and wishes when they agreed with his. There was also no justification for his level of hostility and grievance with the Centre. Experienced staff found him intimidating and difficult to manage. It made her consider how a vulnerable individual would be affected. She did not see how the mother would be able to draw boundaries around contact. He would have a detrimental impact on her and her parenting ability. She considered that there was a substantial abduction risk.

She regarded the children as vulnerable. They showed behavioural problems, which his parenting style did not help. She recommended only supervised contact. But given the risks he presented, she had concerns over how beneficial this would be.

In evidence she explained that part of the assessment was giving feedback and seeing how that was taken on board. She found no evidence that the father could do this. Nothing she saw gave her hope for the future as far as intervention was concerned. In most conversations, he insisted that his relationship with the mother had no bearing. In 15 years, he was only the second person who had tied up so much time with his huge grievances. They were disproportionate. He was extremely difficult to deal with.

For the future, she considered that there should be very strict supervision with the children having help and guidance. She thought he might require a chance to start in a more neutral setting such as the Coram Centre. She considered that D’s bedwetting at this age was anxiety related.

The father had raised his voice to staff, used an aggressive tone, and made accusations implying malice, which was not there out. He had written an 11 page complaint. Whilst there a lot of positives, he cannot separate from his feelings for the mother. Unless there is strict supervision, with this surrounding relationship, conflict will arise.

She accepted that there was no physical violence, but there were worrying threats of violence. When he was not getting control he may become violent. It was her view that the mother had been emotionally abused by him. He became very angry about the gifts he had brought and made very negative and hostile comments, threatening to take her to court. He spoke of her in abusive language.

The mother had mentioned that her brother was a heroin dealer, and that her mother had mental health difficulties, a question the father was keen to ask all witnesses. He was too domineering and authoritative. He was overbearing to the children, but it was also good that he engaged with both of them, and kept them engaged.

There is a risk of an ongoing campaign of severe harassment. The father remains hostile. She considered that to help the father there should not be an ordinary parenting course. It was substantially better addressed in a group. She referred to Respect an independent organisation sponsored by the government. She was thinking of three hours weekly over six months or so.

She took over from Ms Andrews-Trail in September 2006. She produced a report of 11 December. She is unusually experienced, having qualified in 1972, and been a freelance guardian since 1989. She set out a helpful history of the proceedings.

She first met D and N on 4 September, the day up after they had seen their father for contact at Stephen’s Place. They were hesitant to express a view of whether they had enjoyed themselves, but were pleased to have most of the toys. When she saw the father he still wanted the children to be with him for six months of the year in Mexico, but thought it unlikely the court would grant this. If so, he wanted contact in Mexico in the longer holidays. He was prepared to rent accommodation in England during the shorter holidays. He was intending to remain permanently in Mexico.

She saw the contact between the boys and their father on 4 December, noting that they were pleased to see him, D in particular greeting him warmly. She concluded that the boys clearly loved spending time with their father and look forward to it. She considered D had suffered emotionally from the break-up of his parent’s relationship.

They were anxious about spending six months of the year with him in Mexico, because of missing their mother and friends, and falling behind in schools. They would find it incredibly difficult to readjust every six months, given the contrasting lifestyles. It would be detrimental not only to their education, but to maintain a friendship is with their own age group. They had recently moved into their own accommodation, and it was essential that the security they now felt was not disrupted.

There was no evidence that the mother had provided other than very good parenting. The animosity shown to the mother by the father had not lessened. It would be difficult for the boys not to reveal where they live, the mother believing that if he knew they would have to move again. Supervised contact provided more security, which was necessary as long as the mother felt herself and the children to be at risk.

She was present throughout the evidence. It caused her grave concern. She considered that contact without the assistance of a third party was not going to be possible for some considerable time. She had hoped that the animosity would have subsided, and everyone could move on. Having listened, in particular to the father questioning the mother, she described herself as quite overwhelmed by the degree of hostility. She was rather shell-shocked.

She had met the father’s 23-year-old partner. She is Mexican and speaks good English. She was also present in court during the hearing with the mother’s consent. She had had little experience of children apart from her cousin's children.

She said that her starting point was that the boys wished to see their father. She had recommended a Family Assistance Order. She did not see sufficient improvement without a therapeutic assessment. She felt that there should be supervision of contact in a similar degree to that which had taken place at Stephen's place. She thought the proceedings were more like care proceedings. Was the father asking whether she was a good enough mother? There was clear hostility between them; it would be very hard for the children to come to terms with this, trying to protect each parent.

If there was no working relationship, as shown by the question of clothes and the boys’ contact which required such a huge effort, how could they work out contact between themselves? She detected hostility by the father. She accepted that the father had been opened and honest and showed no hostility when she had seen him. There were good and bad bits about the contact session she had seen. She felt it was very clinical; there was no way that could be contact without a third party. She was concerned that the children were very tentative and they felt the benefit of having somebody else there.

She felt that his anger with the mother was so clear. If she had been in the witness box being questioned by him, she would have felt afraid. Sharing was not feasible. The children would still be in the middle. They enjoy and feel comfortable where they are safe. They have a fear of an outburst. He had been angry about the pub, a bank books and the children's swearing, which he had raised with her. The mother felt threatened by him. She had spent months on someone else's floor, and then months in a refuge. She had financial difficulties. She'd had to travel to find accommodation. She still had concerns about kidnapping. She was aware of her brother being a drug addict, and that her mother had been ill, matters the father was keen to emphasize.

Though they had lived together for 9 years, there were quite a few differences between them. The mother had virtually emptied the house when she moved out. On his return, the police had been called. She tried to drive off, but the police blocked the road. He tried to take the children.

She spoke to a friend of his in Mexico and found out that he had moved on. She was vindictive, and he was not to see the children without a court order. She had done everything she could to disrupt his seeing the children. She claims to be perfect mother.

The school had examples of children spending time away as he proposed. She had stopped D learning Spanish, and having tennis coaching. She had stopped N playing football and blamed him. He could not go to their school saved to collect them. She had behaved in a disgusting way. It was not in the children's best interests. What he would like ideally is for the mother to be in Mexico, a long shot now because of her unsubstantiated allegations. They should spend time here and in Mexico and spend Christmas with him.

The mother has good points. She has a good mother in the ordinary way, and brought up the children to be well mannered and behave well. She has played a considerable part in this.

Six months in each country is unusual and said to be disruptive, but the children are very gregarious. Far from losing out, they would be the centre of attention. Higher education is better here. He would want them to take their exams here. He now has a visa to work in Mexico.

He was angry over a short time. He regretted that the mother had seen a letter he had left in the home. It was after he returned from Mexico with the children. It said –

“I am not stupid, you know. I am well aware of that you intended seeking a court order, whilst I am in Mexico, to get the house back. I suggest that you and your excuse for an adviser go back and bribe the judges further as the house will be repossessed soon. It makes no difference how much you bribe Judge Mitchell and Cernik. They are sorry excuses for human beings, and you and your legal advisers are worse. You are an abusive disgrace and D and N will come to understand this of their own volition. You disgust me and I will never ever forgive you for abusing my children as long as I live. I hope you have a car crash and live in agony for ever.”

He did not wish her any harm. He did not accept that passages in many messages were threatening. He repeated that he had only pleaded guilty, because they said that otherwise he would be kept in custody. He saw that he might possibly have made remarks which showed that his self-control had slipped. He now had no feelings for the other one way or the other.

He agreed that he had gone too far in saying that there had been an attempt to bribe the Judge. He also saw that if the mother had been committed to prison, it would be very hard on the children. It had been poor judgment by him to accuse the mother of burning D. He regretted the threat to have the mother arrested.

However he did not see that he had bullied the solicitors. He maintained that emails had been removed which would show the solicitors and the mother in a poor light though I find this hard to believe. He was sorry for his email of September when he described the mother as an abusive excuse of a human being. He did believe that he could show a positive picture of the mother. However, he maintained that the mother was extremely paranoid, shown by her belief that things were bugged. He said he did not have money for supervised contact.

She explained how harassed she had felt. There were 30 calls a day from the father in October. It had been very stressful for all parties. He had been at the front door on one occasion for about half an hour and on another occasion for more than an hour. He said she was abusing his children. On one occasion D awoke. The father said she was to get N out of bed to make sure she had not hurt him. D said get him because then Daddy will go away.

In answer to the father, she said there were many negative matters she had not raised, because she did not think it would be a helpful. She agreed he had never hit or threatened to hit her. He had been responsible for the call in which he said she would be raped and murdered.

It was correct that she had not told her mother of their relationship nor of the two children. She was not well. She had great difficulty in dealing with change, and it would cause her a great upset. It was best to her not to know. She could not remember the father threatening to throw her brother out because he was using drugs.

She agreed that in the long run, it would be of advantage for the children to learn Spanish. But she did not think it was in their best interests to have or three hours of Spanish after school. He had put enormous pressure on her not to attend mediation. It was a time when he said that she was delusional. She agreed that he had no idea that he she was taking the passports to her solicitors.

She had rung on one occasion to say that she would be late for contact. The father had shouted at her, saying he was going to court on Monday, he would take the children away from her, she was not a fit parent. She was abusing the children. N was really frightened by the shouting, D was playing at the time. One of the other parents had asked whether this was really necessary.

The whole experience had been very difficult. He would not let her go anywhere with both children, only one at a time. He had locked the front door. He demanded to see what luggage she had, because it was too much for one night away. She had been very disturbed by what had happened.

The children had gone with him in the summer of 2005 in Mexico, with her agreement. The children did phone her on her birthday. She had taken all the photographs of the children when she had left, because 90% of them were in digital form on the father's computer.

There was a time when he had phoned D five times in 20 minutes. D became visibly upset because he was asking whether he and other had been hurting him. She had not been manipulative. She had arranged for D to have counselling, and this was without notice to him. It was to help him with issues troubling him, and his difficulty in speaking about them to her. D had felt anger and was upset. He enjoyed the four sessions of counselling. She was prepared to see a psychologist.

At the end of all the evidence there was an emotional scene when attempts were made to see if the father could see the children at Christmas. The father was in tears, begging to be allowed to see them. He was not a threat to them. The advice of Ms Weldon was that the prospects of abduction remained alive, and that contact had to make allowance for that risk. I understand it did not take place.

The mother seeks a residence order in her favour. She seeks a continuation of the previous restrictive orders on the father. She asks that future contact be strictly supervised. Finally, she asks the court to order that the father should make no further applications in relation to the children without the prior consent of the court.

Ms Van Spall says that though the father has provided information about his position in Mexico, the position has moved on since he asked that the children spend six months a year there. He has no job, apparently no money, and his new partner, has not met the children.

Such a plan, even if realistic, demanded a high degree of cooperation between the parties, which is not possible given the father's behaviour and attitude. Whilst he made some mild concessions during his evidence, he has expressed the view within the last three months that she is a danger to the children, neglectful, and lies. He has repeatedly said that he will have her arrested. Given all of that and his cross-examination of the mother, the parties could not possibly work together until his attitude changes.

Apart from that the children need the stability and security which the mother is providing. Their progress needs to be maintained. The views of the Guardian reinforce the conclusion that he has not moved on. Strict supervision is required because of the serious risk of abduction, a view shared by Ms Andrews-Trail, Ms Iwi, and Ms Weldon. This is reinforced by his attempt to obtain passports from the British Embassy in Mexico in March 2006, and his subsequent denials.

It is supported by his attempts to locate the children. He mentioned in evidence a tennis club at Ilkley which he had checked because he believed the children were in that area. He tried to obtain information from the school. He has business experience of tracking devices. He has said he would have to resolve the matter in another outlay. He told his aunt that he would have the children in Mexico by the week end. Given his history of complainants against all who did not agree with him, the risk of abduction is very real.

Mr Coleman argues that there are 5 grounds why contact must be safely managed. It is because of the risk of abduction, continued undermining of the mother, distress caused to the children by the father’s overreaction, the upset of any further move the mother might have to make, and the inappropriate discussion and behaviour by the father in front of the children.

He set out the grounds on which these are established. He pointed to the father’s contempt for court orders and his undertakings. He did not return the children on 25 of October as he undertook to do. He said that Judge Mitchell had taken bribes and was a sorry excuse for a human being. He declared his lack of interest in whatever orders there were.

He told Ms Andrews-Trail that Judge Mitchell would not be in his job with a much longer, he was a fool, he did not know what he was talking about, and was biased. He accused the mother's solicitors of bribing him. He failed to heed a warning about harassment given him by PC Wright on 28 October 2005. He said he did not care if he was locked up for 10 years. Though he agreed at court to provide money he failed to do so, and put forward worthless excuses for his non compliance.

He could not provide a positive picture of the mother. He views her with contempt and hatred. He still considers her unfit. His connection with Mexico is recent, and his links tenuous. He has not provided any documents showing his ownership of property, but sought to stress that it is a Hague Convention country. It is not clear whether he would remain at his present address. Judging by his history, he would in any of the end be likely to appeal any adverse decision were he ordered to return the children.

His proposals for the children to spend six months in Mexico are wholly unrealistic. They fail to take into account the extent to which the children would miss their mother apart from problems with a wholly new language. Even if a school would keep a place open to all the on that basis, there is also the disruption to the school syllabus and major difficulties that that would be in to make any arrangements with the mother. He sets out what are his needs and not those of the children.

It is of concern when looking at the e-mails that the father does not consider he has been an abusive or threatening. He appears unaware of the effect that his aggressive approach has on others. Almost no professional has escaped his criticism or abuse from the mother's first solicitors, at the guardians, Judge Mitchell, Stephen’s Place, or the mother’s second solicitors. Counsel have been accused of lying and putting forward matters that they knew to be untrue.

This is quite apart from the repeated threats to the mother to have her arrested, imprisoned, and have to face charges of perjury or and such matters. It is unrealistic to expect the mother to try and cope with the father. He treats her and the whole justice system with such contempt and abuse despite his intelligence.

Mr Coleman suggests that he has a blinkered view of events, which he interprets in the way that he chooses. He is highly manipulative, and makes the complaints to distract attention from the true situation. It is the guardian’s view that there can only be supervised contact. If the father is unable or unwilling to pay for it, then, regrettably, the contact would have to be indirect.

He told me that he was now working and could support the children in Mexico. He considered that the proceedings had been completely biased. Matters which were not relevant had been raised and he had had no chance to disprove them.

He still regarded the mother as having been abusive to D when as he accepted she had placed kitchen gloves on him without appreciating that they were hot. He maintained his argument that the emails from the British Embassy in Mexico had been deliberately tampered with by the mother’s solicitors. He claimed that he had no aggression for the mother because he had no feelings for her. He regarded the barristers as having had a good chance to manipulate the facts.

He pointed out that the worst that had been said against him at St. Stephens Place was that the contact was stilted, hardly surprising given the fact that it was supervised. He had said that he now understood why some father’s behaved as they did – everything was being seen from a left-wing point of view. No one in the courtroom cared about his children and the only one that was affected was him. Whatever he said or did was now irrelevant.

Ms Andrews-Trail had been removed because he said she was biased and everything she set out was untrue. It was nonsense to say that he had tried to locate the children. The mother did not fear abduction, she had manipulated the situation. Their attitude was that the more things they could make up about him the better.

The mother had lied on 3 occasions and made false allegations. He accepted that he was forthright and not the easiest person to deal with. Judge Mitchell nevertheless had dealt with him in the most offensive way possible.

The only way he could prove that he had and could have good contact with the children is for him to see them. He was a highly emotional person. There was no possible reason why he should be penalised any more. The boys deserved to have him in their lives properly.

I tried during the hearing and in the course of the father’s final submissions to explain to him the case that he had to face and to show why there could be concerns about his attitude and conduct. I pointed out that his love and devotion toward the 2 boys was not in dispute. I made it clear that he had considerable skills as a parent and that the children could benefit greatly from a good relationship with him.

I said that my strong wish was for that to happen. I wanted to provide a lifeline if possible so it could take place. But if the case against him was proved there had to be demonstrable changes which were maintained.

The father’s response was that he had changed. He no longer wrote in the same way. Everything that he had been referred to was months ago, though I did show him references as recently as October and November.

He said he could readily find out where the mother was living if he wished. The court had told him that it was in Bradford. He had done nothing to discover her address though he quoted agencies which for a fee could readily do this. It demonstrated that there was no genuine fear of abduction by him.

This is an immensely sad case. There is no doubt that the father loves his children and wants to see them as much as he can. The children love him and he has potentially much to offer. He has however, single-mindedly, reduced the prospects of a successful future relationship with to a very low point. In the absence of a psychological profile it would not be right to reach a conclusion about the reasons that this has come about.

It is evident, however, that in his relationship with the mother he needed to have and to exercise control. He could not stand dissent. When he perceived this to arise, he has reacted in a wholly disproportionate and frightening way. Ms Andrews-Trail described him at one point as being out of control. I am satisfied that that is how it must have appeared when he visited the wife's first solicitors, in his numerous calls to the mother, in his visits to her home, in his reaction to the first CAFCASS report, and to the mother’s solicitors as they faced an unparalleled tide of abuse and aggression from the father with remarkable fortitude.

In reaching those conclusions, I have accepted the evidence of Ms Iwi, Ms Andrews-Trail, Ms Weston and the mother. The submissions of counsel set out above are well founded. I have not accepted the evidence of the father where it has differed.

I refer to the email messages. It is rare to read such a sustained diatribe even in family cases. I am satisfied that there is no hope of contact being negotiated between father and mother without the mother becoming once more the victim of the father’s aggression and contempt. The children will not be immune from it. Quite apart from the threat of abduction by the father, unless there is a well demonstrated change by the father, the prospects of successful contact without considerable difficulty and stress for the mother are remote. The father’s appalling behaviour has already harmed the children (see for example paragraphs 75, 88 and 113). He has not intended this. But his contempt for the mother and his aggressive and abusive conduct has affected them. It will do so again if his conduct continues. He has shown no insight into it and when it has gone on as recently as November, I see no immediate hope of it now ceasing.

The father's sustained abuse, aggression, and criticism of all he sees as opposing him, and in particular the mother, is remarkable. I note it, in particular, that, when he questioned witnesses, he had only 2 apparent objectives in mind. The first was understandably to show that he had a good relationship with Drayton and N. The second was to establish that either the witness was lying or that their evidence was based upon the mother’s lies.

He was able with some difficulty to see that some of his remarks and his attitude could not be sustained when he was asked about it. That apart, his insight is severely limited. He does not understand that unintentionally he has upset and distressed the children nor the extent to which he has undermined the mother and reduced her self- confidence.

Though he modified his views of her when giving evidence, I am not satisfied that he is capable yet of presenting her in any positive light to the children. A remarkable feature of the history of the last year is that, despite all that has happened, this is not a mother who has sought to refuse the father contact. She has acted on advice. She went into a refuge when that appeared the only alternative.

She has had to move to a different area to escape his abusive behaviour. She agreed to supervised contact. She still does provided that, as she has been advised, it is strictly supervised. It is highly commendable that she has maintained this attitude in the face of such an onslaught from the father, who has so little regard for her either as a mother or a person.

I have set out the evidence in this case in much more detail than I would normally do. It is to show the father the unanimity of the conclusions reached by Ms Andrews-Trail, Miss Iwi, and Miss Weldon. Furthermore the basis for those conclusions is all to be found in the summaries that I have made.

It is not all one-sided. Ms Andrews-Trail and Miss Iwi have pointed out how positive some of the contact has been and the qualities which the father has (see paragraphs 74, 83 and 97). Equally they have pointed to the children being sad, confused and unsettled and that they are vulnerable. Having been exposed to something of the father’s hostility, harassment and aggression understandably though very fond of him are also wary of him.

The father has seen himself as a victim of the mother and then of the legal system. He has found it necessary to make persistent and reckless allegations against all whom he perceives not to agree with him. He is powerfully built; his aggression could readily be found to be frightening.

He has not so far shown any significant change. My hope that the court process might by itself provide him with a means of seeing what his conduct was like and why it had caused so many problems has not been realised. I can only hope that the further psychological assessment of the risks that he presents will also give him the opportunity to learn how he can have a mutually beneficial relationship with the children before it is too late.

In the preparation of this judgment I have reviewed a great deal of the evidence and the submissions which have been made. I do not propose to review it further. I share the views of the experts that at this stage it is not possible to see how contact could continue unless it is strictly supervised. I want that situation to come to an end. It has been clear during the hearing that my wishes have gone ahead of the sensible careful and justifiable views of Miss Weldon. I have wanted to find a way forward. But I am at the end of the day quite unable to ignore the weight and validity of the views expressed by them and the realistic submissions of counsel.

I shall grant the mother a residence order. I shall direct that there is to be supervised contact by the father but in circumstances which provide sufficient safeguards. It may well have to be at his expense. I shall approve an order for psychological assessment of both parents. I shall further order that there be a directions hearing on a date to be fixed after 2 weeks from the date that the report is received. I shall give permission for the parties to file further statements in the light of the report. I shall leave the Guardian to decide whether she considers a further report is necessary. I shall at that stage consider whether it is appropriate or not for the court to make an order under Section 91(14) restricting any further applications without leave of the court.

I have not pronounced on the father’s proposals for the children to spend 6 months a year in Mexico. Even if it were ever practical, where there is only supervised contact, the issue does not arise. I shall adjourn it in the context of contact generally. I shall reserve the case to myself if available. I shall ask Miss van Spall to draw the order arising from this judgment.