Case No. Case-No.-LV21P00249

22.In dealing with the applications for contact and parental responsibility, I have regard to the provisions of section 1 of the Children Act 1989. I remind myself that my paramount consideration is the welfare of A. Any delay in making a decision is likely to prejudice his welfare. In terms of the Welfare Checklist, clearly, he is too young to express any wishes and feelings with any degree of understanding, in light of his age. I recognise that he was beginning to bond with his father during the periods of direct contact, but he has not seen his father since December 2019, so, three years ago. A last saw his father when he was almost two years of age. I agree with the Children’s Guardian’s assessment that A is unlikely to have any meaningful recollection or memory of his father. 23. I have noted two documents filed by the father which purport to be statements from two prison officers, at G97 and G98, who saw the father have contact with A and speak favourably of it. I have no doubt that the father was able to ensure that what was witnessed was nothing other than positive, accepting those documents at face value. However, the father is a sophisticated man, quite capable of acting in a cunning and subtle way as well as exhibiting sexual violence, described as “sadistic” by his trial judge. In addition, he is also well capable of speaking to a medical officer to give self-serving evidence to go into his records at G39 and so on, which I find that he did.24.In terms of his physical, emotional and educational needs, I accept that children who have a good, wholesome relationship with both parents generally do best. However, sometimes one parent presents too great a risk to have ongoing contact. Further, any ongoing involvement through the prism of parental responsibility would give rise to risks that outweigh any benefits that this would give. This, in my judgment, is one of those cases. The prison offender manager report at D9 refers to a safeguarding children panel at HMP (redacted) on 20 October 2020 which reviewed the father’s safeguarding children status at the prison. Following consultation with the Local Authority the committee probation officer, H concluded that it should remain at level one. On 27 January 2021, a section 47 report by the Local Authority concluded that the threshold for risk of significant harm for A was met, despite the father’s incarceration and the risk would continue if the mother continued to promote contact. The recommendation was that A be subject to a child in need plan. The father suggested that there would be continuous supervision of any form of contact, to include video contact. The Children’s Guardian has been informed by the prison authorities that constant supervision at contact, of course, is not possible. I accept her evidence. I also prefer her evidence on the issue of what the father said about having to visit his own father in prison and not liking it. He sought to distance himself from what I find he did say to the Children’s Guardian in seeking to suggest that he only disliked one occasion when he had been playing football and did not want to leave.25.In terms of the likely effect on A of any change in his circumstances, the evidence from the Children’s Guardian is that A is currently thriving in his mother’s care. She has had no contact with the father since January 2021 and even then, it was simply to send in a book as a present for the father from A. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and has undergone counselling and domestic violence courses. A has had, essentially, three years without any involvement with his father. 26.In terms of his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the Court considers relevant, A is a young, vulnerable male who, undoubtedly, was exposed to domestic and sexual violence in utero. He suffers from selective mutism and requires good quality, nurturing care to ameliorate the heightened anxieties that safeguarding professionals say that he suffers from. He cannot and must not be exposed to any further domestic abuse perpetrated by his father towards his mother. Even if by reason of the father’s incarceration, it is no longer possible for him to perpetrate sexual violence towards the mother, the father is, in my judgment, liable to perpetrate sophisticated emotional abuse, however. I am afraid that any form of contact for the father will expose the mother, and, more importantly, A, to a risk of emotional harm.27.I recognise that not having any involvement with one’s father is negative and presents a gap in his life which may impact his sense of identity, and he may wonder why his father is not in his life as he grows up. He may feel a sense of rejection, or, alternatively, that it was, in some way, his fault. Good quality life story work can help to ameliorate that situation. That will be particularly important in this case in light of his cultural heritage through his father. The Children’s Guardian should inform the Local Authority so that they can provide necessary services to the mother. In my judgment, these are crucially important. On the other hand, the involvement of the father in A’s life and that of the mother would, in my judgment, expose A to an unacceptable risk of emotional harm and would expose his mother to a risk of ongoing emotional abuse which would be likely to impact on her ability to recover from the ordeal that she was exposed to at the hands of the father. That may, in turn, impact on her ability to provide care for A moving forwards and particularly as he grows older. She will need to be emotionally available for him. He is not without his own difficulties. He has exhibited selective mutism which safeguarding professionals believe is linked to trauma that he suffered in utero and anxiety. The father was only in his life for a very short time before he was incarcerated. The Children’s Guardian properly recognised that there could be a number of different causes for selective mutism but the point is that he is not without his own difficulties, and he will require warm, loving, nurturing care from his mother as a carer, and she will need to be emotionally available to him and not at the mercy of the father’s malevolent intentions.28.I accept that the father has suggested that the contact could be staggered so that it began with video and telephone contact before there were direct visits to prison, noting that the father is presently in a high-security prison. However, the prison authorities have made it clear that they will not supervise and monitor all forms of contact at all times. At some stage, the contact would need to progress to direct contacts by visits. In my judgment, there are insufficient safeguards that could be put in place adequately to protect the child, and the mother, for that matter, and, as the Guardian observed, a re-establishment of any form of contact indirect or direct, would mean that the mother would need to prepare the child for that contact before it took place, and on each and every occasion, and, also, receive the child back after such contact. In so doing, she would be forced to relive her experiences at the hands of the father rather than being able to establish space and distance from him to enable her healing. That would then impact on her ability to be emotionally available for A, as she needs to be. Also, again, as the Children’s Guardian said, children pick up and feed off anxieties of their parent/carer and that would impact on his emotional sense of wellbeing.29.As the Guardian put it, “This is one of those cases where the benefits of any form of contact with the father are simply outweighed by the risks”. I agree with her. I accept that the father does, in his own way, love his son and does want to play an active part in his son’s life. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied that his involvement in the life of his son and the mother can take place in a way that is safe. On the other hand, the evidence is that the mother is providing good-enough care for her son presently, and absent the father in her life, that is likely to continue. 30.In my judgment, it is inconsistent with A’s welfare that his father should have parental responsibility for his son. Whilst he sought to downplay the extent to which he would want to be involved, in my judgment, he is the sort of personality who quickly would be looking to become more and more authoritative in terms of decision-making around his son. That would put an unacceptable burden on the mother to work together with this father to discharge the parental responsibility that each of them would have if I made an order for parental responsibility in favour of the father. In my judgment, it would be to put the mother in an emotional vortex where she was forced to communicate with the father regularly about important decisions in A’s life. There would be no escape for her. She would also be at risk and vulnerable to malevolent intention upon his part. It would expose her and A to a risk of emotional harm.31.I have considered the range of powers available to me under the Children Act. In this case, the prison authorities have assessed the father as a level one risk. That means that as far as the prison authorities are concerned, the father should not have any form of contact with any child. I am aware that the father has made a complaint against one or more of the probation officers that he has dealt with, and, certainly, one has been taken off his case, pending investigation. I have made it clear that following the judgment of MacDonald J in Z v Z (Contact in Prison) [2021] EWFC 47, a full welfare consideration is required from the Family Court so that either party can return to the prison authorities with a decision of the Family Court. If in favour of contact, then the father could potentially apply for judicial review of the decision-making of the prison authorities if they maintained their refusal to permit any form of contact. Nevertheless, it is indicative of the level of risk this father is assessed to pose by the prison authorities who are charged with the task of dealing with him on a daily basis. I do, however, make my own assessment, and do not feel bound by their assessment.