FD24P00284 - [2025] EWHC 729 (Fam)

The father made the following points to me:

He had in his written evidence make points that the mother was neglectful of the children – he did not pursue those points before me. I had already said to him that the complaints did not seem to me significant criticisms of the mother’s care but just the incidents of normal life. He had in his written evidence set out that the mother had before she had met him given up a child for adoption. Ms Gwynne said she had medical records which conflicted with that. The mother denied it. I asked how it would be relevant if true. The father did not in his questioning, or his closing pursue that line at all.

The mother said to me:

Ms Gwynne tells me that while she thinks that the children will benefit from an ongoing relationship with their father there are significant risk factors in relation to his past behaviour which means his time with the children should be supported by a third party. She does not think his proposals in relation to the children living with him are well thought through.

I remind myself of the factors set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act. The answer to this question is not one of painstaking balance. The children have had their principal home with their mother since the parties separated in 2023. The father’s past offending behaviour, which has now come to light, gives rise to risk factors in relation to him, which are exacerbated by a new child. The children need stability and safety. I therefore determine they will live with the mother on their return. I understand that this will be in an area of London with her mother at least at first.

The next issue is what time they will spend with their father. This breaks down into frequency, support, and duration.

There is no real issue as to frequency: the mother and the father agree alternate weekends. The father would like more but he will have about a 1½ hours’ drive to collect and return the children, and he will need the assistance of his new wife for support. He sensibly does not want to over promise and then let the children down.

As to support: Ms Gwynne urges on me that there needs to be an agreed third-party supporter. She tells me that the father’s new wife will not be appropriate because she will have a new child. There is no other agreed third party because the mother rejects the father’s mother and sister as being too weak to stand up to the father. The mother and father do however agree that the new wife would be appropriate.

I need to pay tribute to the new wife. She has clearly been able to command the mother’s respect such that she reassures her as to her good sense and independence. I do however need to worry about her ability to manage this job as well as look after her new child. I also need to consider whether she will be too fragile to stand up to the father when she has a new child.

I make clear I have not heard from her.

I am very concerned about the Cafcass Officers suggestion that an ISW could be employed. The father is not a wealthy man. He will have to pay a significant sum of money to attend the DAP course. He will have to pay child maintenance. I think that to require separate payment for an ISW (or the like) will in reality mean contact will either not happen or will in fact happen with no support.

I accept that there will be risk, and I repeat that I take seriously the impact of the incidents detailed in the safeguarding letter, but I accept the approach that the mother and father advance, namely that the father’s new wife supports him during contact. I would however make provision that there be liberty to the parties to agree an alternative person, so long as the agreement is in writing.

As to duration: there is force in the father’s argument – why should he have less contact than he had before the mother abducted the children? Ms Gwynne’s answer however is to the point. She had previously made no recommendation. The earlier convictions were not known. Now they are known then the potential risk needs to be factored in. So, she says contact should not be overnight. The mother says the same thing. The father says he should have overnight contact. There is no risk. The children enjoyed it last Christmas in country C and the mother allowed that to happen after receiving the safe-guarding letter.

It is clear that there is some force in both sides of this debate. My task is to manage risk while promoting a beneficial relationship for the children.

The course that I take is to say that the contact should not be overnight until the conclusion of the DAP course. The course takes about 6 months. At that stage, subject to the father having a broadly positive report, the parties should review the contact and see if they can reach agreement for further contact to include overnight contact, and holiday contact. Further, at that stage the parties should try and reach agreement as to whether the father still needs to have ongoing support to enable contact to take place.

Any agreement should be in writing. If they cannot reach agreement then the more restrictive provisions of this order will continue, but if they cannot reach agreement each side can make an application to the local family court.

It is not ideal for the parties to have more proceedings to face. I very much hope that there will not be further proceedings, and they are able to reach agreement. I think that is entirely possible in part because by the time of the review there should be the reassurance of a successful course attended by the father, in part because of trust built up over good relationships for the next 6 months, and in part because of positive reports from the children as to how contact is going.

Given the parties are in person I shall draft an order for them to consider with this judgment.