The assessments
26.An Independent Social Worker (“ISW”), Ms Marston, was appointed to undertake a parenting assessment of the Mother and B. This is a long, careful and detailed piece of work, which is not easily amenable to summary. She opines that the Mother continues to believe herself the victim of domestic abuse and that is “embedded in her reality”. That continued belief is likely to impact on the Mother’s functioning as a parent. 27.She also refers to both parents adopting a defensive position that if that continues is likely to further polarise positions and create further barriers. She (and Dr Parker) refer to the “grave level of concern” for X and Z’s long term welfare and well-being. 28.She refers to the long term impacts of parental alienation and says:“For [Z] and [X] it is imperative that there is some form of resolution and that their parents’ take responsibility in supporting both of the children to heal. [Z] and [X’s] childhood cannot be recaptured; I am of the view action toward change is required now and without further delay.”29.She refers to the need for the parents to develop a coherent narrative which can be given to the children to allow the family to move on and to recover from the harm caused. 30. Her recommendation is that the Mother needs to undertake further work.31.Dr Parker, an experienced psychologist, carried out a psychological assessment of the family. Again, this is extremely difficult to summarise. I asked the parties to prepare notes setting out what passages they thought were key, and Ms Tyler’s document alone ran to three pages and well over 40 references. 32.Dr Parker felt that the Mother downplayed the significance of the conflicts in the family and the impact on the children. I have to say that I do not think this was the case during the Mother’s oral evidence, although I entirely accept that the history suggests that the Mother has sought to minimise these concerns in the past. 33.She felt that during the incident on 6 January 2023 the Mother had repeated the pattern of endorsing X’s anxieties rather than taking the lead in persuading her to return to the Father. 34.She was critical of the Mother for not more actively intervening in making the children have contact with their Father, and in not telling X to go back to the Father on 6 January 2023.35.Dr Parker’s view was that many of the problems stemmed from the Mother’s complex attachment processes. At paragraph 14.3 of the first report Dr Parker said:“She seems to fluctuate between patterns of trying to stick to the rules and doing what she is being told, for fear of being sanctioned harshly and a sense of feigned helplessness or abdicating responsibility and blaming others”. 36.The following passage rang true to me in terms of both the Mother’s oral evidence, and the history of this matter:“15.17.2. I have described [the Mother’s] adult attachment style as complex, and one that is likely to cause difficulties for a child in terms of their attachment with her. Their experience of her is likely to be that she is loving and comforting but also inconsistent, unpredictable and often treats them as though they are equal or perhaps even more powerful than her. During proceedings in particular and maybe since the separation from [the Father], there has been a pervasive sense of threat which she has made known to them and has involved them in protecting the new “family unit” from. Being triangulated into the parents relationship is a confusing experience for children, leading to difficulties for them learning the link between events and their responses, as well as their actions and the outcomes.”37.Her view was that X was best placed with the Father. However, now that X is living with the Hs, she considered that indirect contact should be supported and facilitated by Mr and Mrs H. It is hoped that this might result in a resumption of direct contact.