Case No. EWFC-93

Ms Robertson gave evidence confidently. She considered the questions which were put to her including those on behalf of the father carefully and provided detailed clear, sensible and appropriately considered answers. Not only is she clearly a highly competent and organised Guardian, but I found her to be a moderate, careful and thoughtful witness with a clear focus upon A’s best interests. 48.Her oral evidence was in line with her written evidence. She confirmed that she had considered all the evidence and conducted a careful balancing exercise concerning the potential risks to A of seeing his father against the potential emotional harm of not seeing him. At this time, the balance was against direct contact, any emotional harm could be alleviated by indirect contact for the foreseeable future. She stressed that she was not closing the door to father for ever but she agreed with the recommendations of Dr Nadeem at this time.49.She confirmed that her enquiries and meetings with father were conducted entirely appropriately and were sufficient to make her recommendation, together with the totality of the evidence. It was not necessary for her to meet the father’s extended family at this time as the matter was not in a position where supervision of direct contact would be relevant, this could be something to consider in the future. Before family though, professional supervision would need to take place and that would only be after the therapy and reassessment etc in accordance with Dr Nadeem’s recommendation.50.She was concerned about 2 of the recorded video contacts which she considered to be inappropriate for A to receive and also by the father’s reaction to her feedback. He struggled with this, did not like to be challenged and said that being so controlled in the video contacts was making him concerned about his mental health. His appearance and demeanour was variable – sometimes forceful and sometimes apologetic, but it was unpredictable.51.I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. She at no stage appeared to show any bias towards either party and made appropriate concessions.52.