IN THE PRESTON COUNTY COURT
The Law Courts
Openshaw Place
Ring Way
Preston PR1 2LL
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
______________________
In the matter of:
Re: V & Ors (Children)
______________________
Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838
______________________
Counsel for the Applicant Father: MR BURROWS
Counsel for the Respondent Mother: MISS BARRINGTON
______________________
JUDGMENT
THE JUDGE: On 11th September 2012, District Judge Knifton, sitting in this court, made a consent order in relation to three children:
S, a boy who is rising 15;
B, a boy who is rising 13; and
Z, a girl who is now 8, having been born on [a date in] 2005.
They are the children of Mr and Mrs V, who married in 1998 and separated in April 2012, since when they have not spoken to each other until the father questioned the mother in the witness box in this court at a hearing before me that took place a week ago.
In his order, the District Judge provided for the boys to live with their father and Z to live with her mother. He also approved an arrangement whereby the children would spend the weekend together with half being spent with the mother and the other half with the father. The parents were free to arrange other contact as they wished. At that time Z was going to see her father and brothers and B was going to see his mother and sister, but from the time of the separation earlier in 2012, S was not going to see his mother.
This hearing is the last in a series that have taken place in relation to an application by the father for a residence order in respect of Z so that she would come and live with him and the boys and his new wife and her son, who is of the same age as S. In response, the mother issues an application for the enforcement of the contact that she was to be having with B at least, for that contact had stopped by December 2012. The proceedings have been on foot since May 2013.
At this hearing, which began a week ago, I heard evidence from the parents and from Mr Matthew Rowe, a social worker of Lancashire County Council, who prepared a core assessment and a Section 7 report and has been of huge assistance to these children and the court.
Having reached that stage, I adjourned until this week in order to see the boys. That happened this morning. I spent three quarters of an hour with them and related to the parents the discussion that had taken place in which both S and B politely but firmly declined any suggestion that they might like to engage in even the most minimal level of contact with their mother.
This is an application concerning children and of course their welfare, individually and collectively, is my paramount consideration. I am not sure that the parents fully realise how abnormal the situation of their children is. In April 2012 this marriage broke down in circumstances of great distress for all concerned. The mother has, on her own admission, engaged in an extramarital affair pursued over the years from time to time. She complains about her treatment by the father in the course of the marriage. There was, subsequent to the break-up, an occasion on which the mother over-chastised Z, for which she received a caution. There were disruptions with the father being prevented from taking the children to Egypt because the mother feared abduction and the police had been called because of what are, in reality, fairly low level domestic issues. The father, for his part, has brought the boys with him for a confrontation with the mother’s boyfriend at Eid in 2013.
The abnormal feature of the situation, which these parents must never kid themselves is acceptable, is that they are at the moment unable to speak to each other. That is something that can be explained, but as time passes it is not something that they would be able to excuse themselves for because in effect it dumps their dirty linen on their children with probably lifelong effects on the way in which the children may manage their own relationships. I do not, in any way, minimise the difficulties that existed in this marriage but there must come a time when the parents find a way of living with that and doing their best for these children.
I am therefore glad that both parents acknowledge that something ought to be done about this and the order that I make will provide, with Mr Rowe’s agreement, for him to inform the parents of mediation facilities that are available locally and that might create an agenda for the parents; at the head of that agenda I would expect an ability to communicate in a practical manner, avoiding recrimination and gratuitous references to irrelevant grievances.
As it is, the boys will not speak to their mother and as the parents will not speak to each other, it is Z who is the only person who is willing to speak to everybody. That is asking a lot of an 8-year-old and I am sure that she will find it less and less comfortable as she grows older.
I am quite clear that nothing much can change in the arrangements for the children while the relationship between the parents remains in its current shape. Firstly, because I think it unlikely that the boys will feel able to engage at all with their mother until they see their father doing so. Secondly, because I am not prepared to ordain any change in the arrangements for Z that might suck her into the same dynamic. I would rather that the current acceptable and enjoyable level of contact continues to take place than that something more ambitious was attempted, possibly leading to Z becoming alienated from one or other parent over time.
I shall confirm the residence orders that were made and I will do that by dismissing the father’s application for a residence order and by stating that the residence orders made in 2012 will remain in force. I will record the parents’ agreement to attempt mediation to improve their relationship for the sake of the children. I will record the fact that both parents say they support a recommencement of the relationship between the boys and their mother and I will discharge the contact arrangements that are contained in the 2012 order.
I do not consider that it is in the interests of any of these children to make a defined contact order. I have to be satisfied that it is more in their interests to make an order than not to make an order. It is really up to the parents. I would be happy if Z’s contact could be enlarged by agreement as time goes on but I would not expect that to happen while the boys remain entrenched in their feelings. I will make an order instead that the children shall have such contact with the parent with whom they do not live as the parents shall agree. I will record the fact that there is currently an agreement that Z should spend Sundays with her father from 10.45 in the morning until 6.15 in the evening and that the collection arrangements will involve the father collecting from outside the mother’s address and not using the boys as go-betweens.
I would like both parents, but in particular Mr V, and no doubt also Mr Rowe on behalf of the Local Authority, to tell the boys that I was impressed by them and that they handled themselves well during today’s meeting but that I hope that they will go on thinking about this question of seeing their mother because the current position is, in my view, not a solution for them nor is it a solution for Z.
I will draft and circulate an order that reflects this judgment as soon as I can.
[Judgment ends]