Case No. CV22C50070

[1985] UKHL 7) in June 2022 and has been separately represented since that time. 3.By the end of the 3 day hearing, the orders that I should make were entirely agreed. This was in part because the parents had listened to each other’s evidence, and to the evidence of Ms Rayworth the Social Worker, and Ms Geraghty the Guardian, as well as the interventions of the Court. However, given the unfortunate history of this case, the need for some level of clarity going forward, and the possibility that some lessons might be learnt by what has gone wrong in this case, I decided to give a full reserved judgment. 4.The case concerns two girls, Z now aged 13, and X aged 11. They were both made subjects of Interim Care Orders (“ICO”) on 19 May 2022 on the grounds of risk of psychological harm to the children. The underlying issue is what is known in the family justice system as “parental alienation”. 5.The parents had separated in December 2016 after 8 years of marriage. Both parents formed new relationships. The Mother’s wife, B, has two children, S and T, who Z and X have become very close to and treat as sisters. The Father’s partner, A, has one child Y. 6.There were various issues with contact and the first court application was made by the Father on 10 June 2019, i.e. 3 and a half years ago. There were then numerous applications and hearings, which culminated in a fact finding hearing in February 2022 before HHJ Watson. The detail of those earlier events, is set out in my August judgment. The Judge made no findings against the Father, but made findings of parental alienation against the Mother. The Judge ordered a 90 day “Reunification Plan”, by which the children were to move to live with Father, together with the Independent Social Worker (“ISW”) Ms Barry-Relph, who would stay in the Father’s property. It can only be said this Plan went extremely badly with the children smashing property in the Father’s home, absconding, being moved to foster care with police involvement, and Z remaining in foster care whilst X returned to her Father’s care. 7.It is the clear view of the LA and Ms Geraghty that the Reunification Plan was misguided and the role of Ms Barry-Relph unhelpful. I note that neither the social worker, Ms Rayworth, nor Ms Geraghty were involved at the time when the Reunification Plan was put in place and enforced. It also must be acknowledged that hindsight is always a wonderful thing. 8.My August judgment sets out the details of what happened next, including Z absconding from foster care on more than one occasion and putting herself at very significant risk. 9.As is set out in that judgment I decided in August 2022 that Z should go back to live with her Mother. She has remained there since that date. However, her younger sister, X, continued to live with her Father. Although X consistently said she wished to return home to live with her Mother and Z, she did in practice appear to be happy and reasonably settled with the Father. She went on holiday with the Father, his partner and his partner’s son to Florida, and that was a successful trip which X enjoyed. I note that the Reunification Plan was supposed to last three months, but X remained with her Father for 9 months despite her clearly expressed view that she wanted to return to her Mother. It was the LA’s care plan until 6 January that X would remain with her Father. 10.From August through to January 2023, X was having very limited contact with the Mother and Z, seeing them once per week for 2 hours, with professional supervision.11.However, on 6 January X absconded from school and went to her Mother’s house, which is fairly close to her school. It seems likely, although I cannot be certain, that this action was not planned, and X spotted the opportunity after school when there was no one at the school gate. Ms Tyler points to some evidence that X at least had planned the move, but is neither necessary or appropriate for me to investigate this further. When X got to the Mother’s house, she was rapidly followed within a very few minutes by two teachers. As soon as she appeared, the Mother’s friend rang the police on 111. The police attended shortly thereafter. After a discussion between the police, X, and the LA, it was decided that rather than return X to her Father, she should stay over the weekend with B’s parents, Mr and Mrs H.12.The Father, through his Counsel, strongly criticised the Mother for not immediately seeking to persuade X to return to the Father and not pointing out to the police that the allegations X and Z were making about their Father were historic allegations which had already been dismissed by HHJ Watson. I think this criticism is somewhat unfair. The Mother explained, and this does not seem to be in dispute, that the police went into a separate room with X and spoke to her without the Mother being present. I also think Ms Tyler does not fully take into account the heightened emotions and difficult situation that occurred when X arrived at the Mother’s home. Z was present, as were B’s two daughters and another child. It was hardly the moment for a calm conversation with X about the rights and wrongs of the situation. I accept the Mother’s account that she believed the correct thing to do was to leave the police and the LA to decide what should happen next. 13.X spent the weekend at Mr and Mrs H’s house. She went to school on Monday 9th January. On that day in the afternoon Z attended at the school and tried to speak to X. She was highly dysregulated and upset. Ms Rayworth, the Social Worker, and the Father were at the school. Ms Rayworth tried to persuade X to go home, but she refused. Ms Rayworth spoke to X for about 1.5 hours and she was adamant that she did not want to go back to the Father’s house. X then spoke to her Father for about 30 minutes. Ms Tyler was critical of Ms Rayworth for not allowing the Father to speak to X for longer and that they should have “stayed there until it was done”. Again, I think this criticism was misplaced. This is an 11 year old child who was plainly very upset. There came a point when the Social Worker was quite right to say that the adults had said enough and a decision had to be made there and then as to where X was going to stay.14.Since that date X has remained living with the Hs and has refused to have any contact with her Father.