Case No. EWFC-93

70.I have had regard in particular to the criteria of the welfare checklist which I will now consider 71. (a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);In an ideal world, A would want to have a good relationship with both of his parents and would want good communication between them, less acrimony and not to be caught in the middle or subjected to any arguments. He would want a secure, stable and supportive home and safe and beneficial time with the other parent. He would not wish to be exposed to or put at risk of any harm, whether emotional, psychological, or physical as a result of his father’s difficulties. Indeed he is not aware of his father’s substance abuse and mental health difficulties. A was not keen to proceed with direct discussions about his wishes and feelings with his guardian. He has limited memories of his father but says that “it would be good to know what daddy is doing”. He was supported by his mother to watch the video sent by his father but did not wish to respond. There is no evidence that he has been subjected to any parental alienation by the mother or that his wishes and feelings have been deliberately influenced.72.(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;A has the usual physical and emotional needs of a young boy. His physical needs are being met by the mother as are his emotional needs. He attends school regularly and has a safe and secure home and support from his mother. He would certainly benefit from having a relationship with his father as he grows up if this could be managed safely, without putting him at risk of any harm. The issue for me is to decide is how this can be best managed now and in the future and if appropriate, developed over his childhood until he is in a position to make his own decisions.At this time, A’s needs cannot be met by directly by his father but it is important that A knows that his father loves him and is committed to him. It may be in A’s best interests to be told when he is older and when appropriate and accurate, a very simplified and limited history of his father’s problems and then, hopefully, that his father has given up all substance abuse and sought therapeutic support - for A’s benefit as well as his own. Sadly, we are not there yet. Father has started to make changes for the better such as reducing use of illicit drugs and I praise him for this, I encourage him to continue but additionally to seek professional help and support. 73.(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;There would be a substantial change in A’s circumstances if I was to accede to the arrangements suggested by father. A seems resilient and he has suffered various changes in his life over the last few years. He seems to have coped with these so far, but he needs stability and certainty and regular settled arrangements. Any future direct reintroduction to his father would have to be done sensitively and at a pace suitable for A and at a time when he and his mother as primary carer can be assured of his emotional and physical safety. 74.(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;A is a young 7 year old boy. He has no particular characteristics which differ him from any other young boy of his age. 75.(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;I was concerned by many aspects of the father’s evidence both written and oral. He indicated that he would tell A, if asked, that it was his mother’s fault (as well as some of his own problems) that they hadn’t seen each other and “be completely honest”. He accepted that A may suffer emotional upset but stated that he was not scared of total honesty it would be “unethical and disingenuous to hide the truth”; children couldn’t be “wrapped in cotton wool”. When I suggested that at A’s age it may be thought better to shield him from such information, he replied that he was unsure and after some reflection he said that maybe when he was older… but that “we sweep everything under the carpet… leading to a sick society”. This causes me considerable concern as to the father’s understanding of how his behaviour could cause A emotional harm. A has been shielded from much of the father’s problems and history and is far too young to have any complex or detailed discussions about these, indeed he will be too young for quite a few years to come. It is also not appropriate to blame the mother, this could have a negative effect upon the relationship between A and his mother, particularly when the reality of the situation is that the mother has been following the guidance of professionals including social services, CAFCASS and indeed the court. It is the decision of the court not to allow direct contact since the proceedings were issued, not of the mother.When questioned about how A would feel about seeing his father when he was angry, lonely, or upset he refused to accept that it may not be an appropriate thing for A to see. “To hide normal feelings from A is unhealthy. He needs to know the whole picture of the world”. He stated that “I don’t think anyone has the right to tell me how to talk to my son”. If A saw his father arguing or being challenged by professionals due to his behaviour his comment was “he’d hear that I was sticking up for him and our relationship”. There were other examples of where father seemed unable to consider how his behaviour could affect A, including the 2 video messages (which were not delivered) which were addressed in the guardian’s evidence and which she considers to be inappropriate – such as saying “see you soon” and referring to A’s cousin seeing the father. He could not comprehend how A could receive any negative affect at all. In his oral evidence he stated that he considered that the video messages were absolutely appropriate.Such comments highlight what both the guardian and I see as a lack of understanding of risk and how adult behaviour can adversely affect children’s emotional and psychological health. In evidence, father stated that he didn’t understand much of the basis for the guardian’s recommendation of no direct contact but could identify his use of Ketamine and being inconsistent in his presentation as being 2 points. He accepted that they could theoretically be risks but stated that he would not use Ketamine with A or in the days before. He held liberal views about ketamine use and said that this was a difficult area to navigate as it depended on your personal beliefs. Ketamine, he said, helped you to be introspective and to philosophise. He denied “needing” the drug and said it wasn’t a question of needing it, the use of Ketamine was not unethical in his opinion.He pointed out that many parents drink wine when looking after children, it is not black and white. Ketamine, he says, helps him in the same way as someone else choosing to have a glass of wine.He stated that the whole thing (by which I assume he meant the court process and denial of direct contact) is “immoral, unethical and difficult to rationalise. Justice has not been done so far and it’s been a waste of public money”In my judgment there are fundamental differences between a parent having a glass of wine and a parent taking Ketamine. The father seeks to minimise his habit or addiction. Ketamine is an illegal Class B drug. Longer term effects of ketamine use can include flashbacks, memory loss and problems with concentration and regular use can cause depression and, occasionally, psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations. Ketamine can also make existing mental health problems worse. This was confirmed in the report of Dr Nadeem which father wholly dismissed. Possession of Ketamine can lead to a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. The father does not understand or accept the risks of continuing to take such a drug – recreationally, as he said, or that it could be a risk to A unless taken at a time when there is contact. These risks include mental health difficulties but also the possibility of relapsing to high levels of drug and alcohol use (E81, Dr Nadeem). At E83 Dr Nadeem continued: “The father has good insight into the devastating impact of his dependence on heroin and cocaine on his health and life in general. …however he has limited insight into the adverse effects of his on-going drug and alcohol use and he believes strongly that he does not require any further help from services. He is unlikely to engage with psychological treatment for mental health problems or treatment through substance misuse services. I think that this is likely to delay his recovery from his mental health and long-term addiction problems.“I think he is at very high risk of relapse to higher level drug or alcohol use. If he relapsed, then this is very likely to have a marked adverse impact on his mental health, relationships and ability to function. If he relapsed to higher level drug and or alcohol use then the risks are markedly increased, including risk of verbal or even physical aggression to others, risk of self-harm and risk of accidental or intentional self-harm and suicide”The father has sought help and undertaken drug rehabilitation previously, on 5 occasions according to his oral evidence but it is clear that he has sadly relapsed. The longest he has been abstinent from illicit drugs and alcohol is about 1 year in 2016 (E55 Dr Nadeem). He has certainly made improvements over the last 2 years, acknowledged by Dr Nadeem. He admitted in evidence that he still uses Ketamine now, “not weekly and not for 6-8 weeks now” but states that he is not addicted but uses it only “recreationally”, “it helps me”. He has had positive and negative experiences with Ketamine and when asked if it was a risk, he suggested that it was as much a risk as such things as shopping or crossing the road. It is clear he has very limited insight to the risks and of concern that he considers that he knows more about the drugs impact than the expert psychiatrist.Dr Nadeem recommends that the father should commit to a plan to engage with support services and to be totally abstinent from drugs and alcohol for at least 12 months, with the same period of sustained stability of mental health (E85). This would include psychological treatment to develop better coping strategies (E80). In his oral evidence he clarified that there should be complete abstinence before Dialectical Behavioural Therapy commenced or it would be less likely to succeed. This was not a generic approach but specifically for this father with his long history of substance abuse and his underlying mental health condition and personality profile.Sadly, the Fathers approach to personal support to date has not been positive. This includes his complete dismissal of input from the medical profession such as his GP: “an absolute waste of time”; NHS Talking Therapies: “an absolute waste of time”; his dismissing using prescribed medication such as anti-depressants and sleeping tablets: “Cannabis is a much safer and beneficial option”, together with his complete rejection of the evidence of Dr Nadeem (“cut and paste garbage”) and attacking his credibility; “He manipulated me… He lulled me into a false sense of security and then when I was honest and open with him, he then weaponised everything I said to him and used it against me. Disgusting and unprofessional”I am entirely satisfied from the evidence in this case that the father presently presents a real risk to A of emotional and psychological harm due to the issues I have just addressed and to the fathers almost complete lack of insight into how his behaviour could affect A. If the father’s mental health or drug use relapses that could become a physical risk. I do not suggest that the father would deliberately harm A, but his indications of wanting to tell A what he sees as “the truth” would potentially be very harmful.It is for these reasons that I consider that there should be no direct contact between father and A. I also consider that there should be no unplanned/unscripted indirect contact between A and his father. A Facetime (or similar) call, with the risk of father being unpredictable, or becoming distressed, suffering a relapse, or telling A his opinion of the history or other inappropriate comments such as blaming mother – no matter if unplanned – would cause harm to A. Comments once made could not be taken back and A is simply too young to understand. 76.(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;The mother is presently capable of meeting A’s daily needs and she has shown in the past that she is capable of doing so. The mother has also shown historically that she is capable of meeting A’s needs in promoting indirect contact with his father. The guardian is satisfied that the mother is supporting A in the indirect contact and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.77.(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. I have the options of making various orders under the Children Act – Child Arrangement Orders in relation to A including an order that he should live with mother / father and / or an Order that he should spend time with mother / father and I remind myself that making no order at all is an option. IX