The Guardian
98.In her final analysis described H as a “very happy little girl of seven years of age. She is articulate, bright and confident, she knows her own mind and for her age can clearly express how she feels and why”. In oral evidence she described H as delightful and a true credit to her mother. She had no concerns in respect of the care given to her by M.99.In her final analysis she recommended on balance that the travel ban be lifted to allow one visit to The Gambia subject to being “extremely concerned” as to the position (then) of uncertainty regarding paternity. She recommended that H should spend time consistently with F, being content with M’s ‘stepped contact plan’ with supervision by MU or, PHS1 in the alternative. 100.In her oral evidence and having considered all of the oral evidence and the new material about paternity, she continued to recommend that the proposed trip should take place, subject to all of the available safety measures discussed by the experts and others suggested by me during the course of the hearing. 101.She told me that having considered the issue of contact further, she did not see the need for contact to be supervised but only for the handovers to be supported, but definitely not by M. She considered MU to be entirely appropriate for this task, having met and assessed him. She emphasised that it was important to “take M along with us. Both H and her have got to feel comfortable”. She acknowledged that M had moved her position considerably. She reassured F that he was not to blame for the impasse over contact which between early 2022 and its re-introduction in December 2022.102.She recommended that both parents considered using a parenting App which would be useful for communication but to preserve each other’s privacy and reassure M in the light of the domestic abuse.103.She confirmed that she sought expert advice on how and when to explain to H her true biological paternity.