Case No. EWFC-85

8.The father’s application in form C100 supported by form C1A - for a child arrangements order ‘specifying how long the children will live with each parent’ and a prohibited steps order to prevent the removal of the children from the jurisdiction – was issued in his local Family Court on 12 December 2019. 9.The case was transferred to the Central Family Court on 3 January 2020. 10.The Mother had filed a C1A dated 7 February 2020, raising issues of abuse and in particular a risk of ‘sexual abuse of the children’. 11.A First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA) was heard before magistrates on 18 February 2020. The court had received safeguarding information from Cafcass (pp311 -325). The Cafcass letter dated 14 February 2020 recommended a Local Authority section 7 report, informed by the previous social work assessment, which had included an investigation of the allegations of sexual abuse. The magistrates ordered indirect contact and a Cafcass section 7 report (pp86-90). The mother gave an undertaking, still in place, not to remove the children from the jurisdiction save for a holiday over Easter 2020 (p91). 12.On 4 March 2020 Cafcass wrote to the court requesting that a fact-finding hearing should be completed before Cafcass could make recommendations about child arrangements. 13.At the Dispute Resolution hearing on 12 May 2020 the magistrates decided to order a fact-finding hearing (the mother sought this; the father said it was unnecessary given the social work report already available from Local Authority B) and the case was re-allocated to the District bench in my area. Indirect contact was ordered to continue and a directions hearing was listed for 14 July 2020. 14. On 14 July 2020 the case was heard by a Recorder. Indirect contact was increased to include video messages from the father to the children and their face-to-face contact with the paternal grandparents, and specific directions were given to prepare for a 4-day fact-finding hearing on the ‘first available date after 28 September 2020’. It is sobering to record that this hearing started exactly 18 months after that date, 20 months after the directions were given and 2 ¼ years after the father made his application. A hearing listed in May 2021 was vacated due to a lack of any judge to hear the case. The delay in the listing of this hearing has been egregious. The long wait for court time must have caused both of these parents considerable added stress. The Children Act 1989 section 1(2) reminds the court that ‘any delay in determining [the case] is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child’. I can only acknowledge the delay and the impact of this on the family and express my personal regret that they have had to wait so long.