Case No. EWFC-93

83.Section 1 (5) of the Children Act 1989 provides: ‘where the Court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order … unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.’ This provision does not create a presumption one way or the other. It merely demands of the court that it asks itself the question whether to make an order would be better for a child than making no order at all.84.I note the comments of Dr Nadeem when he states the father’s ‘underlying psychological problems/personality traits can continue to affect him’ including his ‘anger problem which can be provoked by what he might perceive as unfairness or injustice’ and how this could manifest given his strong emotions about the mother. I was pleased to hear the father’s final comments when he expressed his regret for the emotional pain he had caused and stated that he now wants healing and reconciliation. I express the hope that hearing the live evidence and having had the opportunity to challenge it he now accepts more of it that he did previously and that this is a genuinely expressed emotion.85.I am entirely satisfied that this is a case where an order is justified. In summary, I accept the evidence of the mother, the guardian, and Dr Nadeem that until such time as the father has accepted the need for and actively sought help for his drug issues and mental health issues; and thereafter been stable, drug free and undergoing the recommended therapy for at least 12 months, contact between him and A should remain on an indirect basis only with communications supervised. 86.The father in his summing up asked the court to shorten the period to 6 months from 12 due to the length of time it has been since he saw A. It is important that the father recognises that the suggested 12-month time was not set as a random arbitrary target but rather as an indication from an experienced professional of how long the therapy would be likely to take to be effective and show sustained improvement and acceptance. Cutting it short to save time would undermine its effectiveness. Therapy is a sustained treatment, with time to reflect as well as active sessions. It is not a quick fix, particularly with such a long history as the father has. Often therapy can be needed for a much longer period that 12 months: it depends on proper engagement, acceptance and genuine open progress. It would be in A’s best interests for the father to accept this and work as directed by the therapist rather than seeking any short cuts.87.It was clear from the guardian’s evidence, and I wholly agree, that the father should resist making any further applications to court until he has undertaken the therapy, ceased to take any illicit drugs and shown evidence of sustained change and resilience. Any earlier application would be likely to fail and would simply cause both parents and A stress, worry and possibly emotional harm. 88.There has been no application for a S.91(4) barring order in this case and it is not appropriate that I should make one without proper notice and consideration. I would, however, urge the father to resist the temptation to issue a new application without proven change.89.I consider that the totality of the evidence, supported by the guardian, is clear that there should be a “live with” order for the mother. This will give A the security he needs whilst he grows up.XI