Case No. EWFC-171

86I have already referred to some of the flaws in the father’s case. I do not find that mother has alienated the children from him. In the first few weeks of the separation, she shielded the children from her emotions after father left. She told the children it was someone else on the phone when she was upset so they would not know the reason was father. All she wanted to do was work out how the parents would handle the situation. Within a few weeks, the children were seeing their father and both parents agree the children were pleased to see him. That only changed when he forced them to stay with his new partner and her children. He had moved on and thought everyone else should too.87There was one occasion when A overheard a conversation about how mother was going to cope financially. Mother and grandmother regret it. That was not alienation. Father’s treatment of A about it was the problem. As grandmother rightly said, the effects on the children are cumulative and father just bullied A. 88Mother was finding it difficult to make arrangements with father and at one hearing she asked for his parental responsibility for A to be removed. Having seen and heard her evidence, I find that was frustration about not being able to agree arrangements with father rather than an attempt to exclude him from the children’s lives. She mistakenly thought that she needed father’s parental responsibility to be removed so she could take the children abroad. In his evidence, father said there was a time when he would not agree to a holiday. He said it was because he wanted as much information as possible about the trip. My view is he just wanted to know what mother and the children were doing. 89Mother accepted she did take A for a choir audition at the School, Ely and applied for a place there without consulting father. That was because A did not want him to know. I can understand A’s position because once he was told of the application, father used it to try to pressurise A into talking to him. Father has parental responsibility and there were no restrictions placed on his exercise of it. He should have been kept informed and consulted. Having seen his attitude and how he exercised parental responsibility though, I do not find that the mother was attempting to alienate father. She was trying to protect herself and A from what she knew would happen.90In relation to the time that mother took A to the police, she said it was for them to reassure A that they would not take her away and force her to see her dad. I accept her evidence. In my judgment, it would have been better for her to speak to A to reassure her. This was not an attempt at alienation though. This was after A had refused to go to contact. This was mother dealing in perhaps not the best way with a fear created in A by her father, as he had said he would go to the police.91I have already said that mother did not create false memories in A. These children repeatedly talk to each other. Father repeatedly offered inducements to the children to go to Portsmouth but he criticises mother for saying the children would get a little present when they got back. This was an encouragement to go, not an attempt to alienate their father. He says the twins were missing out on the things that mother and A did when they were with him. It was up to him to give the twins a good time, in my view. I cannot see why A was not allowed to have a nice time while they were away.92I have already said that father created issues around the gate and blamed mother. I accept mother’s evidence that he made comments such as he she has not bothered or that she does not care when he deliberately got the children back early and was there before her. He was the one causing the problems. His allegations of parental alienation are not made out.93I find the chronology of contact helpful in deciding on the allegations each parent makes. The children had regular contact with their father, including staying contact, from a few weeks after the parents’ separation in August 2017. They were happy to go and enjoyed it until father’s behaviour put them off. On the evidence, it is clear that A refused to go in early 2018 because of the way her father behaved. The twins contact carried on and included alternate weekends and holiday stays. In August 2019, they stayed for nine nights.94During his evidence, father accepted there had been extra contact around the children’s birthday. In June 2019, father wanted to change the weekends. Mother could not because of her work but she said she would swap within a couple of months. She did not seek their return early from weekends and days out. That was father’s choice.95The incident in December in which C was upset because her father did not tell her mother about the blood in her urine led mother to pause staying contact. Father made his application which included the allegations that I have referred to. He did not mention the upset caused by him to C. His claim of alienation by the mother is not borne out by the facts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but, in my judgment, if he had made a measured application or gone to mediation, the staying contact would probably have resumed quite quickly. Mother tended to give into him. The WhatsApp messages show that. He thought his confrontational C100 would make her give in. 96In relation to mother’s allegations, it will be apparent that I find father did frequently chastise the children, in particular B, in an inappropriate manner, including the ear flicking, the slap in the car, excessive shouting, and manhandling. Most of the incidents were accepted by father although he minimised them. B was frightened by the ear flicking incident. He talked about it at school. In October 2019, he said that his father smacked him, pulled his hair, flicked his ears, and gets angry. He did not want to go to his father’s house again. Mother suggested day contact. Father ignored B’s feelings and mother gave in.97Father dictated when he saw the children and that is clear from the messages as well as the parents’ evidence. He did get angry when mother stopped overnight contact and when A stopped going. He accepts he said he would call the police. He thinks that was a suitable use of police time. There is no dispute that he did not tell mother about the blood in C’s urine. His failure to do that was deliberate and thoughtless. C was upset.98In the WhatsApp exchange of 18 June 2019, the father was coercive and controlling. He went on at her for three hours. He does not stop until he gets his own way. The harm to the children comes from the fact that he has the same approach to them, to his new partner, and to her children. B does not back down and C is compliant so they suffer emotional harm. Their father sees nothing wrong in his behaviour and is unlikely to change. Mother wanting to stop contact now needs to be considered against that.99Father’s treatment of A has to be seen in context. There is nothing wrong with asking a child to get a glass of water but it is his reaction when people do not do what he wants, him losing his temper so mother has to walk on eggshells or lock herself and A in the bathroom. That is what causes harm to the children and their mother and they need to be safeguarded from the effects of that. 100Father has intimidated the children. They witness the verbal abuse of their mother at handovers. They went to Portsmouth to avoid him getting angry. The distress he caused A by his repeated demands for details was abusive. He said it was just while they were driving along Fen Causeway. For A, that was a long time to be subject to his anger. Threatening to call the police to force her to go to contact was abusive and intimidatory. He did get angry if his offer of presents to A did not work.101In relation to grabbing the children and pushing them in the car when they were upset, the father says that they were fine once they got going but his approach to contact and behaviour towards their mother caused them to be upset. In my judgment, mother’s allegations are made out. B suffered some physical harm. All of the children have suffered emotional harm as a result of his treatment of them and their mother in and around contact. They witnessed that. A also suffered emotional harm from his treatment of their mother when she was younger. The children have all described how they felt.102The children’s guardian has been present for most of this hearing and there will be a transcript of this judgment. He has seen the father’s lack of insight and failure to see that his approach to contact was not child focused. Like me, I am sure the guardian would have been concerned that mother cannot see any benefit from direct contact but that must be seen in the context of the way father treats people and his seeming inability to change. I would like the guardian to meet with the children and to assist the court on whether contact could be safely managed so that the children can have a relationship with their father through direct contact and not suffer further harm. If third parties such as grandfather could support the children, then father should not reject that as he did in the past.103Contact is in the children’s interests if it can be managed safely. Father has been signposted to courses to help him gain insight and address his behaviour and I would urge him to take them. I know the guardian will consider the children’s wishes and feelings but their emotional needs and their father’s ability to meet them and the risk of harm are also important in this case. I would be grateful for assistance from the counsel on how much time the guardian needs. In the interim, the indirect contact will continue.104That concludes my judgment.__________