Case No. SA21C50004

In respect of contact MX and FZ seek contact once a month. If they are separated, and I consider that to be unlikely, or present as separated, that would be 24 contact sessions every year which is too frequent to be consistent with F’s need to settle and be secure. 86.As a matter of record since 6th February 2023 the Court has been provided with further information which, if accurate, would suggest that MX and FZ have resumed living together; it is set out in the statement of a Homelessness Care Worker (DC) dated 7th February 2023. The Court is informed that bed and breakfast accommodation was arranged for FZ who did not take it up. In her statement DC has said that FZ told her that he is now living back at MX’s address, they are back together for now and wish to continue with their relationship but that they have been unable to do so whilst there has been an “ongoing Social Services and Court case”. I am also told that FZ has said to RM (Team Leader in social services; her statement is referred to above) that he is staying with AS and his wife. MX and FZ have not had the opportunity to respond to this information and I do not rely on it.87.If there was to be separate contact for FZ and MX, that would be 34 sessions each year and F attending a contact session more than once each week. If MX and FZ are living together again and had contact with F together once a month that would also be too frequent particularly when considered alongside the proposed contact for F’s siblings which is due to take place 8 times each year; a total of 20 contact sessions annually it would mean that F had contact sessions to attend nearly every fortnight. Contact session once a month by parents who are likely to be hostile to the placement and will require supervision is not in the interests of F’s welfare; that is to say it is not congruent with her need to see her parents while ensuring her placement is not undermined.88.I have been told that FZ has already indicated he wants to make a complaint about contact; but this has not been confirmed. The frequency of contact is something that directly affects a child’s ability to settle and feel secure and unless a placement in unequivocally and positively supported by those having contact it is likely to be problematic and the Local Authority have to guard against the placement coming under too much strain or be overloaded with contact commitments. 89.This is not to diminish the importance of such contact for F but the Local Authority’s care plan already sets out a schedule for F to have over 16 visits a year with her siblings and family. Four with A, four with her other three siblings and four each with MX and FZ. That is more than once per month and is already more than most placements could easily sustain. If MX and FZ are to take up contact together that would reduce contact to once each month (12 times each year in total). That level of contact is a message to F which will ‘tell’ her much more clearly where her permanent home is and is likely to be more consistent with her welfare needs, it will be less disruptive to her and will reduce any likely strain on her placement. 90.This is my judgement. 1 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 s32 DAA 2021 s13 See § 7 above4 See also the commentary at 2.282[20] The Family Court Practice 20225 See also Re L (a child) (special guardianship order: reasons) Ibid.6 Dated 30th September 2022 at E1255 et seq of the bundle. 7 See§10 above.8 Para 1.5 of the report9 Para 10.11.17 at E952 10 1. R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. The legal principle it sets out is as relevant here as in any criminal case. The principle is that if, after a witness has given evidence, the court concludes that witness has lied it does not follow that they have lied about everything in their evidence nor can the lies, of themselves, provide proof of the facts alleged. A witness may lie for many reasons, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure. The Lucas direction has been adopted by the family courts for many years and was considered in the Court of Appeal by McFarlane LJ (as he then was) in H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136. The judgment emphasised the need for any judge hearing a family case not to take a lie as direct proof of guilt, and I have in mind his words in [100] “In my view there should be no distinction between the approach taken by the criminal court on the issue of lies to that adopted in the family court. Judges should therefore take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt”.