Case No. EWFC-93

5.The background is set out in the case summary prepared for this hearing by A’s Solicitor. The background section in the case summary is factual and not controversial. I will set it out here:6.“The parties commenced a relationship in 2012, with A being born in March 2015. The mother reports that the parents’ relationship ended in around March 2016, whereas the father states that it ended around March 2017. 7.Upon separation, A remained in the care of his mother. The father had supervised contact with A for a period of time following the parents’ separation due to concerns about the father’s substance misuse and mental health difficulties. The parents subsequently agreed for contact to progress to take place on an unsupervised basis, with A spending one night a week in his father’s care. 8.On 28.01.2019, the father was taken to […………………………] Hospital by Police under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. He was subsequently admitted to […………………….] Hospital where he was assessed and received treatment for an overdose. The following day (29.01.2019), the father was transferred to […………………]Hospital and discharged two days later. He was to receive follow up from the [………………] Drug and Alcohol Team and the Home Based Treatment team. 9.A referral was made to […………………..] children’s services by an Adult Mental Health social worker and the local authority completed a CAF assessment. The outcome of the assessment was that a safety plan was formulated around the father’s future contact with A (detailed at D10-D13) and for such contact to be supervised by the mother, or another appropriate extended family member/friend. The case was closed with no further action at the end of February 2019. 10.The mother reports that she supervised A’s contact with his father following the CAF assessment however this was stopped by her in December 2019 due to concerns around the father’s behaviour. Following this, the mother reports that the father then contacted her a few months’ later (March 2020) when video calls were facilitated on a few occasions. 11.A has not spent any time with his father in person since December 2019.12.A s.7 report completed by CAFCASS dated 04.05.2021 [E6 – E23] confirmed the parents’ respective positions at that stage as being: a. The father seeking supervised contact with A and ultimately, for a shared care arrangement;b. The mother was not in agreement with direct contact and wanted the matter to be considered by professionals. 13.The s.7 report was considered at a hearing on 18.05.2021. Indirect contact was recommended by CAFCASS as an interim measure at a frequency of once per month, which was agreed by the parents and an order made by consent [B10 – 14]. Recommendations had also been made in the s.7 report for hair strand testing and expert assessment. 14.The matter was referred to DJ Entwistle following the hearing on 18.05.2021 who directed enquires be made with CAFCASS in respect of the appointment of a children’s guardian for A under Rule 16.4. This was accepted by CAFCASS and Ms Robertson was allocated to the case. The matter was listed before DJ Entwistle for further directions on 05.07.2021. 15.On 30.06.2021, an application was made on behalf if the guardian for expert assessment of the father by consultant psychiatrist, Dr Nadeem [B16 – B36]. This was lodged with the Court together with the guardian’s position statement [E18 – E23]. 16.The application and proposed directions were discussed with both parents in advance of the Teams hearing on 05.07.2021 with the mother agreeing to the guardian’s proposals. The father however was hesitant and his detailed position is recorded on the face of the Order made by the Court that day [B38, paragraphs (F) and (G)]. 17.The Court granted the guardian’s application for expert assessment and hair strand testing and the matter was timetabled through and listed on 22.10.2021 for DRA/early final hearing. 18.On 03.08.2021, an application was made on behalf of the guardian for an urgent hearing in view of the father having only provided consent to limited medial information being obtained. There was liaison with Dr Nadeem who had indicated that not having the father’s medical records would be a major limitation and he would prefer not to complete an assessment if that were the case [full details as to the issues are set out in the C2 application at B51 – B52]. There were also issues in respect of the hair stand testing (also addressed within in the C2 application). 19.Subsequent to the filing of that application, the father confirmed his agreement to full information being obtained and an order was made by consent on 15.09.2021 for directions and for the re-timetabling of the case [B56 – B57]. 20.By mid-October 2021, a portion of the father’s medical records remained outstanding, which meant the expert had been unable to provide a complete costs estimate for the application for prior authority to be made to the Legal Aid Authority. The parties were able to agree directions for extensions of time which were incorporated into a consent order dated 15.10.2021 [B61 – B63]. This order timetabled all matters, including final evidence, with a DRA/Early Final Hearing being listed on 27.10.2022. 21.Dr Nadeem interviewed the father on 27.10.2021 and provided his report on 26.11.2021 [E46 – E87]. 22.On 02.12.2021 Dr Nadeem contacted the child’s solicitor following receipt of an email from the paternal grandparents which suggested that they had read the expert’s report. An email was sent to the father reminding him of the confidential nature of the proceedings and that documents must not be shared. Examples were provided of persons with whom the father would be permitted to share the report, e.g. his GP for treatment purposes and any legal representative instructed by him within the proceedings. 23.Further correspondence took place with the father in respect of issues raised by him regarding Dr Nadeem’s report. The father was offered some further time to consider matters and the child’s solicitor consulted with Dr Nadeem and agreed an amended timetable within which questions could be put to the expert and for written replies to be received to enable the hearing in January 2022 to go ahead. This amended timetable was agreed by both parents. 24.On 16.12.2021, the child’s solicitor was contacted by solicitors instructed by the father who provided written questions for the expert. Dr Nadeem provided his responses on 10.01.2022, which were sent to the parties. 25.On 13.01.2022, the father’s solicitors confirmed they were no longer instructed. 26.Statements were filed by the father and mother (on 13 and 14 January 2022 respectively) following receipt of Dr Nadeem’s written replies to questions [at C5 – C8 and C9 – C11] 27.The guardian’s analysis was then filed on 24.01.2022 which proposed further hair strand testing of the father and an expansion to contact to include pre-recorded videos on a monthly basis (in addition to the letters already directed) [B64 – B65, paragraph 4]. The father sought a wider expansion of contact but did not oppose the recommendations and indicated a willingness to provide the expert’s report to his GP. The mother expressed some concern in respect of the risk to A however also did not oppose the guardian’s proposals. In addition, the Court directed further hair strand testing and made other directions, including an addendum from the children’s guardian with the matter being further listed on 08.04.2022 for a repeat DRA. 28.The guardian’s addendum report was filed on 06.04.2022 [E136 – E151]. This report made a final recommendation that A live with his mother and have indirect contact with his father on a monthly basis to include letters, cards and small gifts as well as pre-recorded messages should the father feel able to manage the same [E150]. 29.The father confirmed at the hearing on 08.04.2022 that he did not agree the guardian’s recommendations and his position remains that he seeks direct, supervised contact with A. The mother agreed the guardian’s recommendations”30.The case was listed for final hearing before me on 29 June and 1st July 2022. Dr Nadeem had been warned for the second day and on the morning of the first day I gave permission for him to attend remotely at the request of the father. I had received questions for Dr Nadeem from the father.31.Directions were made for the father and mother to respond to the guardian’s addendum report by written statement, which appear in the bundle at C18 – C30 and C31 – C32 respectively. The father has also filed a number of other documents following receiving permission to file third party reports [C33 – C38]. 32.The guardian was directed to file a position statement, served 27 June.III