FA-2025-000111 - [2025] EWHC 2756 (Fam)

The judgment in March 2025

The judge had over 1000 pages of documents before her, and heard the case over 3 days. M was represented by counsel, F was in person. Both parties gave evidence (in F’s case, the absence of a QLR for F meant that questions had to be put through the judge), as did the Cafcass Officer.

The judge commented at paragraph 4 of her judgment on the intensity of the parents’ dislike and mistrust of each other. She found that F did not truly accept the previous fact findings and showed no real insight into his behaviour towards M, and its impact on both M and D. She referred to F’s continuing use of ill judged language in letters to D.

She agreed with the previous judge’s findings about M that she always painted the worst picture possible of F, and that some of her criticism of F was excessive and unjustified. Her antipathy to F has intensified such that “she now completely believes it would be better for D if her relationship with – and link to – her father were completely severed”. The judge found M to be at times contradictory and self serving in her evidence. All that said, the judge accepted that F’s behaviour has had a profound impact on M, compounded by F’s lack of insight and unwillingness to accept the findings of fact against him. She concluded that M was not in a position to cope with, facilitate or promote contact.

The original Cafcass Officer who was asked to report on, inter alia, the change of surname issue, filed a report on 30 May 2024 in which she said:

D nodded in the affirmative when asked if she wanted to spend time with her father and “did not present as distressed at the mention of her father”.

D was likely to be exposed to her mother’s influence.

F appeared to show a genuine interest in D’s life.

An interim lives with order should be made in M’s favour. The parties should take part in a Cafcass-commissioned ICFA and a further s7 report should be prepared to consider the progress of the programme.

The Cafcass Officer left the service before any final hearing, and a further report was prepared by a different Cafcass Officer on 25 October 2024. The judge noted that the second Cafcass Officer did not see D (unlike the first Cafcass Officer) even though some seven months had passed since D had been. The judge found the second Cafcass Officer’s analysis in some respects to be “fairly superficial”. The principal risk of direct contact identified by the second Cafcass Officer was the potential for emotional harm to D if F were to make inappropriate comments during such contact. The judge said (paragraph 94 of her judgment) that in her view the second Cafcass Officer had not given sufficient consideration to the previous judgment, the possibility of mitigating risk and the fact that F’s threatening and aggressive behaviour largely occurred during the breakdown of the marriage some years previously. The judge said that the second Cafcass Officer did not fully take on board the impact on D of having no meaningful relationship with F. However, the judge accepted the overall conclusion that D would need a high level of support for contact to be reintroduced safely.

The judge analysed in some detail the various issue before her, through the prism of the welfare checklist. She noted that D had become distressed before and during indirect contact in 2023 and 2024. D had a close bond with M and would be affected by M’s distress. In the absence of an independently supported professional service, supervised contact on its own would not work. Nor was it realistic until F undertakes perpetrator work. To force D to attend a contact centre would be likely to embroil her in further conflict and cause her emotional harm. To expect this to take place while F does not accept the findings, and has not addressed his behaviour, would not promote the relationship between D and F. She did not find (as explained at paragraph 120 of her judgment) that F will never be capable of having a relationship with D. He needs to reflect on the fact finding judgment, and access support to address his behaviour, but that is not a realistic option at this time.

Looking at all the evidence and submissions in the round, she concluded that D should live with M, and contact should be limited to indirect form only.