Case No. EWFC-14

31.I then turn to consider the remaining matters in dispute between the parties.32.I agree with the father’s proposition that minor changes to the detail of the order can properly be dealt with by way of submissions. I do not need to hear oral evidence from the Family Court Adviser or from the parents to resolve these limited issues.33.The father seeks additional periods of contact with the children during the school holidays. Following detailed negotiations, the parties have agreed that where the father’s weekday contact falls within a school holiday (including half terms) the contact should be extended to be for the full day. They have also agreed that there will be an extra day of contact at Easter and at Christmas. 34.The father wishes to add an additional 3 days of contact during the school summer holidays and an additional day for each half term. That is opposed by the mother.35.In determining this issue, I bear in mind the serious findings that I have made against the father and also the risks that I identified going forwards, including the risk that the father will denigrate the mother to the children, that he will lose his temper with them and that he has in the past physically chastised C. There is also a risk, particularly at handovers, that contact between the father and the mother will lead to arguments and possibly to violence leading to a risk of physical and emotional harm to the children. It is those risks that have led to the requirement of supervision both during handovers and at the father’s home. 36.However, I also bear in mind the positive comments about these children’s relationship with their father which come from the mother as well as from third parties. As Ms Pomeroy points out there is no criticism of the quality of the contact between the father and the children to date. Ms K is an independent social worker who supervised the father’s contact with his children and who gave evidence before me in June 2022. Her description of that contact was extremely positive. The children enjoy their time with their father and missed him when they did not see him. The father demonstrated lots of warmth and care and, overall, a good capacity to parent these children. The parents were able to work well together in her experience. In her S.7 report the FCA said that the children might welcome a progression of time with their father and would enjoy that time with him but cautioned against the impact on the children of the father having even one incident of a loss of control. 37.It seems to me that, as the mother has recognised, some gradual progression of contact is appropriate, particularly bearing in mind that I am making final orders which will set in place the arrangements now for the foreseeable future. Even with the mother’s concessions as to weekdays, this still means that the children will only be seeing their father one day a week, even during the long summer holiday. I consider that this is insufficient time for them given the quality of their relationship with him. I agree with the father that there should be additional contact during the school summer holidays and this should be for an additional 3 days. 38.In so far as half terms are concerned, the mother’s concessions as to weekdays may result in an additional day with their father, but may not do so depending on the week in which the weekday contact falls. It seems to me appropriate that there should be that additional day, whether or not half term falls on the right week. 39.However, the protection against the risks I have identified, namely the involvement of the third party in these arrangements, must remain in place for these additional periods of contact as well as those already agreed. I note the father seeks to reduce the period of time that his contact is supervised, but I do not agree with that proposal. It is a matter for the mother to judge whether she is prepared to agree to any variation in that regime whether as a one-off event or more generally. There is nothing to prevent the variation of any part of my order by agreement, but I do not think it helpful to build into the order any expectation that such variation will take place. 40.I agree with Ms Pomeroy that there is no need to vary the provision in the order as to identification of the third party who is to supervise the contact and handovers. This was the wording the parties have agreed previously, is understood by them, and appears to have worked to date.41.Finally, the father seeks a recital in the order to record the mother’s position as to the receipt of therapeutic input. This issue is complicated both by the trauma the mother has undoubtedly suffered as a result of the father’s abuse, but also now the pending criminal proceedings. Beyond encouraging the parties to find, outside of continued litigation, a method of communication to enable them to exchange information about their children and discuss any issues that arise, that is not a matter for this court to engage in. I do not propose to add recitals to this order save to record any matters, separate from the order, that have been agreed by the parties. Recorder Samuels KC