Case No. CV22C50070

’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. The parties’ positions15.As I have set out above, the parents’ positions shifted considerably during the hearing. By the end of the hearing all parties agreed the following:a.Z should be subject to no order and have a Child in Need plan.b.X should be subject to a care order with her living with the Hs;c.X’s contact with Z should be increased in line with a document agreed with the LA, and that contact should include contact with S & T. The Hs can act as supervisors in a fairly light touch way. d.A plan is to be worked up for contact between X and her father to be started as soon as possible. e.Both parents are to engage in a Parenting Apart Programme (“PAP”) supported by the LA.f.There are to be therapeutic interventions offered to the family.16.This was in essence the LA and the Guardian’s position throughout the hearing, although the proposals for contact developed during the hearing. The Mother’s position at the start of the hearing had been that X should return to her care. The Father’s position at the start of the hearing had been for X to be returned to his care under a care order, and that Z be subject to a supervision order. 17.Z supports no order. She sought greater contact with X. Mr van Besouw said in closing that although Z would like further and speedier increase in contact, she would be pleased with the general direction of travel. 18.At the commencement of the hearing Ms Tyler sought an adjournment so that the Hs could be subject to a Connected Persons Assessment (“CPA”) and, if that application was refused, she asked for an order that Mr H should attend for cross examination. I rejected that application in a short separate judgment. In essence, I considered that the benefits of delaying the hearing for a CPA were outweighed by the disbenefit to the children, and indeed the parents, of further delay of between 4-6 months. This family has been subject to court proceedings for 3.5 years, and public law proceedings for almost a year. The strain on all concerned, and the effect of uncertainty on the children has been devastating. I am not convinced that a CPA would tell me very much that is likely to change the outcomes of the case. I understand the LA do intend to do a CPA after the hearing. 19.In respect of Mr H giving evidence, although there might be some forensic benefit, given the relatively sparse level of information about Mr and Mrs H, the impact of him being cross examined might well be highly detrimental both to any future relationship with the Father and potentially to the placement of X with the Hs. Overall, I determined that it could be highly detrimental to X to insist that Mr H gives oral evidence and is cross examined.20.It is to the credit of both of the parents that their positions moved so far during the course of the hearing. This gives some optimism that the parents are capable of listening and making decisions that are focused on the best interests of the children. I very much hope that this progress is maintained. The law21.The law in this case is not controversial. In deciding whether or not to make a care order I must apply s.31(2) Children Act 1989 (“CA”). The parties agree that the threshold criteria for making such an order are made out.22.The most recent decision of the Court of Appeal is Re S [Parental Alienation] [2020] EWCA Civ 568. I set this out at length in the earlier judgment, but it is worth doing so again:“7.At the outset, it must be acknowledged that, whether a family is united or divided, it is not uncommon for there to be difficulties in a parent-child relationship that cannot fairly be laid at the door of the other parent. Children have their own feelings and needs and where their parents are polarised they are bound to feel the effects. Situations of this kind, where the concerned parent is being no more than properly supportive, must obviously be distinguished from those where an emotionally abusive process is taking place. For that reason, the value of early fact-finding has repeatedly been emphasised.8.As to alienation, we do not intend to add to the debate about labels. We agree with Sir Andrew McFarlane (see [2018] Fam Law 988) that where behaviour is abusive, protective action must be considered whether or not the behaviour arises from a syndrome or diagnosed condition. It is nevertheless necessary to identify in broad terms what we are speaking about. For working purposes, the CAFCASS definition of alienation is sufficient:"When a child's resistance/hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent."To that may be added that the manipulation of the child by the other parent need not be malicious or even deliberate. It is the process that matters, not the motive.9.Where a child's relationship with one parent is not working for no apparent good reason, signs of alienation may be found on the part of the other parent. These may include portraying the other parent in an unduly negative light to the child, suggesting that the other parent does not love the child, providing unnecessary reassurance to the child about time with the other parent, contacting the child excessively when with the other parent, and making unfounded allegations or insinuations, particularly of sexual abuse.10.Where a process of alienation is found to exist, there is a spectrum of severity and the remedy will depend upon an assessment of all aspects of the child's welfare, and not merely those that concern the relationship that may be under threat. The court's first inclination will be to reason with parents and seek to persuade them to take the right course for their child's sake, and it will only make orders when it is better than not to do so. Once orders are required, the court's powers include those provided by sections 11A to 11O of the Children Act 1989 , and extend to consideration of a more fundamental revision of the arrangements for the child. We agree that whilst a change in the child's main home is a highly significant alteration in that child's circumstances, such a change is not regarded as "a last resort": Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam) at [53] to [59] per Sir Andrew McFarlane P. The judge must consider all the circumstances and choose the best welfare solution.11.Cases at the upper end of the spectrum of alienation place exceptional demands on the court. It will recognise that the more distant the relationship with the unfavoured parent becomes, the more limited its powers become. It must take a medium to long term view and not accord excessive weight to short-term problems: Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124 per Sir Thomas Bingham MR at 129. It must, in short, take action when and where it can do so to the child's advantage. As McFarlane LJ said in Re A (Intractable Contact Dispute: Human Rights Violations) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104; [2014] 1 FLR 1185 at 53:"53. The conduct of human relationships, particularly following the breakdown in the relationship between the parents of a child, are not readily conducive to organisation and dictat by court order; nor are they the responsibility of the courts or the judges. But, courts and judges do have a responsibility to utilise such substantive and procedural resources as are available to them to determine issues relating to children in a manner which affords paramount consideration to the welfare of those children and to do so in a manner, within the limits of the court's powers, which is likely to be effective as opposed to ineffective."”23.There are a number of cases concerning alleged “parental alienation”. This is a highly fact specific scenario in which labels and generalisations are not in my view helpful. In a very large number of cases that appear before the Family Courts, particularly concerning private law, the parents have some degree of animosity towards each other and whether consciously or unconsciously may influence the views of the children about the other parent. It must however be remembered that children are autonomous human beings who have their own feelings and their own perceptions. That becomes particularly true as they become older and begin to wish to assert their own personalities separately from parental control. 24.It needs to be accepted, and carefully considered, that the “muscularity” of Court intervention suggested at [13] of Re S may be in considerable tension with the wishes and feelings of the children. As the children get older, and more weight would be accorded to their wishes and feelings, the Court has to consider very carefully the degree to which a very significant interference in their Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (“EHCR”) rights against their wishes, is justified and proportionate. 25.In my view the Court should also bear closely in mind in these difficult cases, that there may be no “good” solution. The Court cannot rewrite the past and only has a limited influence on the future. It is often not possible to cure the wrongs that have happened, and it is particularly hard to change a mindset or narrative that has been firmly adopted. It may be, although I am only considering the facts of this particular case, that these comments are particularly apt in respect of slightly older children, who are less open to being told what to do by adults, whether for good or ill. The assessments26.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. The evidence38.Ms Rayworth was the children’s Social Worker between May 2022 and 30 January 2023 when she moved to a different team. Given her long involvement with the family it was decided that it was appropriate for her to give evidence, rather than the very recently allocated social worker, Ms Inskip. 39.Ms Rayworth was a careful and thoughtful witness who plainly had a good understanding of the family, and a generally good relationship with X. It was noteworthy that she spoke with compassion and empathy about both parents and the terrible situation that this family had got into.40.She said that she could see some “green shoots” in the case as both parents were willing to engage with PAP and to work with the LA. It needs to be noted that the Father had always been willing to engage in such programmes, so the green shoots in that regard really relate to a shift in position by the Mother. The LA’s aim is that X returns to live with one of her parents’ rather than remains with the Hs long term. In the light of X’s strongly expressed wishes, it is more likely that she will live with the Mother, but the LA do not rule out her living with the Father. 41.She felt that the Mother was less likely to undermine X living with the Hs, as X was living with family members.42.She was asked a number of questions by Ms Tyler about the events of 6 January, but I note that Ms Rayworth was not at the Mother’s house that day and has no direct knowledge of what happened.43.It was also put to her that Z was placing great pressure on X to say she didn’t want to live with the Father. Ms Rayworth accepted this to some extent. But she said X had been absolutely consistent throughout that she wanted to go back to live with her Mother. She felt that X had acted as she did on 6 January because the opportunity had arisen to leave the school and go back to the Mother’s house, and she took it.44.Ms Tyler heavily criticised the LA for effectively giving in by not returning X to her father. Ms Rayworth said they had to weigh the risk of X further absconding and putting herself at greater risk, and the fear that if they forced X back to Father it might further fracture the relationship. 45.Ms Rayworth accepted that there had been a history of the LA making recommendations and the Mother’s engagement with them being very limited. Therefore, there needed to be some caution in accepting the Mother’s commitment to engage in the future.46.X has not seen her father since 6 January and the Hs have not forced/persuaded her to do so. Ms Tyler was again critical of the LA in this regard. Ms Rayworth said that from her conversations with the Hs, she does not think they are opposed to contact but that Mr H was worried about confrontation and saying the wrong thing before the final court hearing. He is very aware of how contentious matters have been. Ms Rayworth considered that the Hs would support contact with the Father, but that they needed extra support both to understand how the family had got to this situation and in supporting X going forward. 47.Mr H had said he had not had time to read the key documents. Ms Rayworth accepted that this was unfortunate but did not think it reflected any lack of commitment or preconceptions. She believed that Mr H was in full support of the children having a relationship with both their parents and in agreement with facilitating contact. The Mother48.The Mother seemed exhausted and ground down by the litigation and the events of the last year. She said on frequent occasions that the current situation could not continue. She accepted that she had made mistakes and must change. She spoke positively about the benefits of the therapy she has been having with Dr Choudhry and felt that had made a real difference to her understanding of her behaviour. She wanted to learn to avoid falling into the traps she had fallen into in the past.49.She emphasised how horrible the last year had been, saying that the girls being removed had been the most horrific thing. I think that she spoke honestly about the impact this had had on her and how keen she was for the future to be different. 50.She spoke about engaging with the PAP and trying to learn from it and move towards parallel parenting. Although she would love for X to come straight home, she accepted that she had work to do before this would happen. She also spoke about encouraging the girls to have contact with the Father.51.She accepted that she had let her anxiety get to her, and that this had transferred to the children. She also accepted that she had not handled the situation in the past when the girls called her from contact and complained about the Father.52.She strongly felt that what happened in March 2022 and the Reunification Plan was the wrong way to handle the problems that had arisen and that the relationship with the FSW, Rose, should have been allowed to develop to re-establish contact. She did at times in her evidence seek to go back to those earlier disputes, but in the main she focused on what could be done going forward. 53.In relation to the events of 6th January, she said that she had done what she believed was right, which was to leave the Social Worker and the police to manage the situation and for them to decide what should happen. She did not feel it was appropriate for her to intervene and to urge X to return to her father. 54.She said that she would support X staying with the Hs and that she would obey the rules and believed that Z would do the same. She said that Z was so keen for X not to have to go back to the Father, and to have more contact with her, that she could not undermine X’s view of her Father.55.Ms Tyler put to the Mother Dr Parker’s view that she found it hard to work with professionals that she did not agree with. The Mother said she had worked with professionals such as Ms Rayworth and fully engaged with Dr Parker and Ms Marston. 56.I have no doubt that the removal of the girls in March 2022 was a terrible shock and I accept that it was largely from that point onwards that she realised that she had to change. I think the Mother was trying to be honest with the Court and genuinely intends to engage with the PAP and with encouraging the girls to have contact with the Father going forward. I am not wholly optimistic as to how that will go. I accept Dr Parker’s analysis set out above, that the Mother’s anxieties can easily deflect her from persuading or pressurising the girls to do something they do not want. I can see that the Mother’s will to do the right thing could quite easily be overborne by Z’s very strong personality and sense of grievance, as well as the Mother’s worries about Z’s risk of self harm and suicidal ideation.