Conclusions
65.The children in this case have been badly served both by their parents and in my view by the family justice system. Although doubtless everyone involved has acted with the best of intentions, believing they were acting in the children’s best interests, in practice the last year has been devastating for the entire family.66.Given that this hearing is unlikely to be end of this unfortunate saga, and the ongoing dispute about contact, it is appropriate that I set out my reasoning for making the orders that are now agreed.67.I fully accept Judge Watson’s judgment and the facts that she found. I also accept that I have the immense benefit of hindsight. However, I do not think that the label of parental alienation is at all helpful, indeed in this case it has been thoroughly unhelpful, by embedding conflict and a sense that one parent is right and justified, and the other parent wrong and has acted inappropriately. This case is an example of how the adversarial process of litigation, particularly when combined with lengthy delays, serves to entrench positions and produce poor outcomes for the children. 68.It was clear from the Mother’s oral evidence that she allowed her anxieties and her own issues with the Father to influence the children. I can imagine that she found it extremely difficult to hide her worries from the children and that probably unintentionally she had put the children in a position where they felt they had to support her, and reject their father, in order to be loyal to her. 69.It is also clear that she was quick to abdicate responsibility, whether to professionals or the children themselves, and not to actively seek to persuade the children to have contact with the Father.70.Although I think she has learnt some of the relevant lessons, both from the trauma of the last year and from her work with Dr Chaudhry, I remain very worried that she may slip back into allowing Z in particular to dictate the terms of engagement. I fully support her continuing the sessions with Dr Choudhry and the PAP programme. It is essential that she learns strategies going forward for more actively, and perhaps at times more forcefully, parenting the children. It is not sufficient for the children to talk to her and feel supported, there are times as a parent when it is necessary to lead and to tell children to do things they don’t want to do.71.However, these faults in parenting are by no means unusual or unique. There were many stages of the evidence when I felt that the Mother was being judged by unfair and unrealistic standards. The Mother may be somewhat passive and over anxious, but for these faults to lead to her not seeing her children, save in the most limited extent, for months on end, was in my view disproportionate and ultimately counter-productive. 72.Some of the criticism of the Mother’s conduct was not merely unfair it bordered on the inhumane. The Mother was denied any contact with her children between March and July 2022. When she was told in June that X was at the school fence very much wanting to see her mother she went and gave X a hug. She was criticised in cross examination for acting inappropriately by breaking “the rules”. I consider that the Mother acted as any loving parent in her situation would have done. Somewhere in the history of this case we have lost our humanity. Ms Tyler submits that this paragraph may be taken to justify parents breaching safe contact arrangements. That the Mother breached an order may be clear, but the failure to understand why she did so, and judge it with some humanity is what has been lacking in this case. 73.The children’s relationship with their Father is undoubtedly very important. All children have, save in the most exceptional circumstances, a right to know their parents and it is important for their long-term psychological wellbeing that that they should do so. But on the facts of this case that objective has been pursued in a way that is likely to be counterproductive and ultimately destructive of the children’s wellbeing and quite possibly their long-term relationship with their father. 74.The Father undoubtedly loves the children and wants to do the best for them, but I fear that he became so fixated on preserving or re-creating his relationship with them that he has lost proper insight into the impact of his decisions and actions upon them. The fact that he was at some points supported by the LA and the Guardian does not abrogate the need for him to adopt a genuinely child-centred approach. 75.He was asked what mistakes he had made, and he struggled for an answer. He could not see that there are a series of choices he has made over the last 12 months which have served to antagonise the children, without apparently him having had any consciousness of the impacts. He pursued the Reunification Plan which had the aim of “providing space for the children to rebuild their relationship with their father”, but in practice forced the children to leave their Mother in the most traumatic of circumstances; he supported Z being put into foster care where she was isolated from her entire family; in June 2022 he applied for X to change school against her wishes and when it would result in her losing her friendship group; he pursued Z being subject to an ICO at the Interim Resolutions Hearing although this would have had no possible benefit and was strongly against Z’s wishes. Even at this hearing he continued for the first part of the hearing to want Z to be made subject to a supervision order even though she desperately wants to be free of any order and of proceedings.76.As far as I could ascertain, the Father had failed to consider the impact of these choices on the children, and in each case he was driven by his desire for a continued relationship with the children, rather than their wishes or the importance of them having a relationship with each other. I can accept his belief of the great importance of them having a relationship with their Father. I find it much more difficult to accept the degree to which he has prioritised that relationship over their sibling relationship and over their strongly expressed wishes.77.Ms Tyler argues that without the Reunification Plan the Father’s relationship with X would not have been re-established, and that X has been happy for the most part with the Father during the 9 months she lived with him and his partner. It is not possible to be confident about what would have happened without the orders made in March 2022. I accept X did appear to be reasonably content, and at times had a good time, with her Father through that period. However, she was consistently saying she wanted to live with her mother and sister. X must have felt that her voice was being ignored, and her compliant behaviour not rewarded. This is an example of a case where by March 2022 there were no good options. However, the option that was chosen has not had a good outcome, albeit this is with the great benefit of hindsight. 78.In deciding what orders to make in this case it is important to return to first principles. The paramount issue for me is the child’s best interests. In determining that issue I must have regard to the welfare checklist. The family justice system makes frequent reference to the wishes and feelings of the children, and the need to listen to the voice of the child. However, in this case the voice of the children has in my view been lost. Both children have been completely clear and consistent that they want to live with their Mother and that they want full contact with each other, and also with S & T. 79.The Father places much weight on the fact that X lived with him for 9 months apparently happily and having a good time. He is baffled by her actions on 6 January. However, X had been completely consistent throughout this time that she wanted to return to her Mother and be with Z. I have no doubt that X loves her Father. X was prepared to stay with him. However, her actions entirely accord with what Ms Rayworth said. She believed she was placed with her Father for 3 months, then this was extended and by January with the hearing approaching she saw an opportunity to go back to her Mother and she took it. 80.She is an incredibly conflicted child who has been put in a horrible situation by adults who should have known better, but she has been clear by her actions and her words that she wants to live with her Mother and not her Father. I very much hope when these proceedings end, and the various pieces of work are undertaken, she will be prepared to see her Father and to resume a relationship which she undoubtedly enjoyed. 81.The parents and children in this case need a break from proceedings; the parents need time to undertake work by which both of them can learn to parent together in a way that helps their children; and the parents and children need to undertake relevant therapy to try to help them reconstruct relationships. 82.There is no question but that Z should remain with her mother. There is little benefit to her being subject to any public law order, and she is understandably adamantly opposed to any such order. I therefore make no order. 83. In relation to X, I find that threshold is met and a Care Order is made. I accept that it is sensible that whilst at least the first stage of this happens she should live with the Hs. I have no reason to believe the Hs will not promote contact between X and the Father once this hearing is finished and the dust has slightly settled. Ms Rayworth was confident that was the case, and I believe both the Mother and B will encourage the Hs to support contact.84.But whilst X is living with the Hs I am clear that she should have much more extensive contact with Z and with S & T. The LA’s plan going forward makes provision for this level of contact and I hope moving towards more natural contact with the Mother and B. However, the details of how this will be achieved and the gradual increase in contact is a matter for the LA.