![Case No ME22P00646 - [2025] EWHC 2464 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Analysis
The parties separated in January 2021. The father’s application for a child arrangements order was issued on 24 May 2022. I handed down my fact-finding judgment on 3 July 2024. These children have not had a proper relationship with their father for almost 4 years.
At each hearing until the present one, the local authority has attended court with a plan, a plan that was working towards the restoration of a relationship between all of the children and their father. Although progress has been slow, it has been possible to see incremental steps towards that goal. The commencement of direct contact between D and his father was achieved successfully. Both the agreed therapist Z and the then social worker SW1 undertook intense work with the family to support D’s contact, to plan for the reintroduction of C to her father and to challenge the false narratives held by A and B. As part of that work the mother’s support and engagement was being tested and assessed. The local authority made it very clear up to July that active consideration was being given to the issue of proceedings should the plan to reinstate contact fail. At the hearing on 18 July I was urged not to make a s.37 direction, or to consider making public law orders, because the work being undertaken by Z had not been completed, and the local authority was committed to continuing its work with the family. There was no suggestion at that hearing that the local authority was thinking in terms of ‘stepping down’ its involvement or recommending that the proceedings should be brought to an end without any further progress being made towards reestablishing the relationship between the children and their father.
My difficulties with the plan for the children now advanced by the local authority are as follows:
No explanation has been provided as to why, if Z can no longer be supported as a therapist for the children, an alternative therapist cannot continue that work.
The local authority has made no attempt to include the Guardian or Dr Gomes in their decision-making process. The Guardian was proposing to attend the professionals meeting fixed for 5 September, but that was cancelled by the local authority and not rearranged.
The local authority appears to have stepped down its involvement already following the hearing on 18 July. That stepping down resulted in the misguided attempt to reintroduce C to her father, without any of the direct work planned in advance or any social work support for the contact sessions themselves, as provided initially by SW1 when D was reintroduced to his father. It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that the proposed reintroduction was unsuccessful. The local authority appears now to accept ‘defeat’ rather than reassessing, with professional advice, whether and how a successful reintroduction of C to her father could be achieved.
The local authority tacitly accepts that D’s contact with his father will be difficult to sustain in the longer term given the pressures he is likely to face at home. No plan is in place to support that contact against such pressures. When the mother opposed extending that contact to staying contact, the local authority took no positive step to address that issue. I was told by Mr Simons at the hearing that the reason for the mother’s objection was that she asserted that the father’s living accommodation was unsuitable (because of lodgers at the property). Even if that correctly sets out the reason for her objection, the local authority had not attempted to visit the father’s property to assess this for themselves and set out no plan to do so. Thus, the mother’s block on the progression of contact was simply accepted at face value by the local authority.
There is no plan to address the issue of indirect contact between the 3 older children and their mother. SW2 had noted that the mother’s commitment to contact was “superficial” and although the mother verbalises that she is promoting the relationship between the children and their father, “her actions do not support this”. She was not sharing the father’s photographs with the children, but simply putting them in a box for the children to access if they choose to. The mother was not in agreement with the sharing of information with the children about the father’s family. The local authority again appears to accept that the mother can just block the progression of indirect contact, if that is her wish.
The only future work proposed by the local authority is with CAMHS, work that is yet to be agreed or timetabled and appears centred on addressing mental health issues with A and B rather than any of the wider issues concerning their false narratives or their mother’s alienating behaviour.
The local authority does not plan to address any of the concerns identified about the mother’s parenting of her children. The earlier criticisms of her, as set out by Z and SW1, appear to have been set to one side. No wider consideration has been given to the risks to these children’s emotional welfare of being brought up by their mother, even aside from the issues concerning the father. As a result, there is no plan to address the issue identified by Z of the children being exposed to inappropriate information and a lack of boundaries in the mother’s home “leading to enmeshment, parentification, and adverse effects on the children’s mental health”. Equally there is no plan to address themes of control, manipulation and co-dependency identified by SW2 in the relationship between B and his mother.
The local authority has not considered the potential benefits to the children of sharing parental responsibility with the mother, short of removal. As ‘looked after’ children they would benefit from enhanced support and services, together with greater monitoring and oversight. Had the children been looked after it would have been inconceivable that the local authority would have delegated to the parents alone the important step of preparing for and then implementing C’s proposed reintroduction to her father. Active involvement at this time could support D’s continued contact with his father and its extension to overnight stays. It could be used to plan how C could then be reintroduced to her father. It could be used to address the significant parenting issues addressed as above. It could be used to support indirect contact.
The local authority has not considered whether it might be possible for D, or possibly D and C, to move to the care of their father. The local authority has looked at the children as a unit rather than individually.
It is appropriate, therefore, to invite the local authority to think again about this family and whether it is now necessary for them to initiate public law proceedings. I have, as a result, decided to make a direction under s.37. I have also considered, separately, whether it is necessary and proportionate to make interim public law orders and, if so, what order bearing in mind the importance at all times of the Court taking the least interventionist approach so as to respect this mother’s Article 8 rights and the Article 8 rights of the children.
The local authority concedes that the interim threshold is crossed, in that there are reasonable grounds for believing that these children have suffered, or are likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to the mother’s parenting. That harm is emotional harm arising not just from the false narrative and alienating behaviours of the mother, but also the dysfunctional, enmeshed parental relationship, the lack of boundaries in the home, the poor mental health exhibited by A and B and the aspects of control, manipulation and co-dependency between the mother and B. I find that the interim threshold criteria are amply satisfied in this case.
In considering what, if any, orders to make pursuant to s.38 the Court must have regard to the paramountcy principle and the welfare checklist. The Court must go on to evaluate the proportionality of the proposed interference with the parents’ and children’s article 8 rights, having regard to the principle that the court must always adopt the least interventionist course consistent with the children’s welfare.
A (12) and B (10) maintain the false narrative that they have been sexually abused by their father and by other men, at the instigation of their father. As such they wish to be left alone, and do not want to be subject to any local authority involvement, still less to be ‘looked after’ by the local authority. C (8) has not recounted any direct experience of being sexually abused and has at times shown an interest in developing a relationship with her father. On other occasions, however, she is drawn into the narrative promoted by A and B. D (4) clearly enjoys the time he spends with his father and would not want that relationship to be curtailed or ended.
All 4 children have an emotional need to develop full and enduring relationships with each of their parents. They need to be protected from developing and maintaining this false narrative about their father. They need to have their mental health needs met and the issues around their mother’s alienating behaviour and her role in promoting the false narrative needs to be addressed. They need to have healthy functional relationships with each of their parents, free of issues of enmeshment, parentification, control and with proper boundaries set for their behaviour. Each child needs to be able to form a relationship with their father without influence from the other children.
No immediate change of circumstances is planned for these children. I acknowledge that the local authority does not propose to separate the children from their mother at this time, whatever order I make. That decision firmly and properly rests with the local authority unless and until it puts a care plan for removal before a court. I accept, in any event, that any care plan for removal would have been inchoate at the present time in that it would be unclear where they would be moved to.
These are children in their formative years with an opportunity at the present time to develop a relationship with their father. It is noteworthy that they lived with their father and their mother until 2022.
The significant harm that these children have suffered is set out above. If these issues are not addressed now then it is likely that all 4 children will grow up to believe, falsely, that A and B were sexually abused by their father and by other men. It is likely that their mental health will deteriorate, as has the health of A and B, without significant mental health input that challenges the narrative rather than just accepts it to be true. Without further input, the mother’s dysfunctional parenting style may continue to place all 4 children at risk of emotional harm.
By way of balance, it is important to note that the children, particularly A and B, may respond negatively to further social work involvement. They wish to be left alone. The difficulty is that such an approach stores up greater problems for each child as they grow into adolescence and then as young adults. The issues arising from this case need to be addressed now if they are ever going to be.
The assessments to date raise no issues with the father’s ability to meet D’s needs during contact. My understanding is that the local authority (and the Guardian) support the move to staying contact for D with his father. There are significant issues raised as to the mother’s ability to promote with the children a positive relationship with their father. Her support to date has been superficial and she has not engaged fully with indirect contact. There are real concerns that her presentation is different when there are professionals involved as opposed to when she is on her own with the children. Her more general parenting ability has been criticised by the local authority, particularly in relation to B. The parent / child relationships are said to be dysfunctional, with insufficient boundaries, and there are aspects of her relationship with B that are concerning. It is not for a 10 year old boy to dictate to his mother whether and with whom she can form relationships.
In this case the range of powers available include the power to make interim care orders to enable the local authority to share parental responsibility for the next 8 weeks. The local authority has said that the making of an interim supervision order would have no practical impact on the support or services that it would provide to this family over that time. It would not enable the local authority to share parental responsibility for these children.
Mr Sharpe was clear in his submissions that the local authority had already undertaken the necessary balancing exercise in deciding not to issue proceedings and as to the services it was willing to provide to this family. A s.37 direction alone would not achieve anything of substance for this family, because the local authority had already reached its conclusion. Nor would an interim supervision order. No enhanced services would be made available to address the substantial issues highlighted above in connection with contact and the mother’s parenting of her children. Eight weeks on, the local authority would, in all likelihood, repeat the same analysis as previously articulated and relied upon. This family would be no further forward in addressing the significant issues that have beset them.
In my judgement, the sharing of parental responsibility by the local authority at the present time, for the next 8 weeks, will bring the following benefits to this family and these children:
The contact between D and his father will be properly monitored and supported. The local authority would be actively involved in decision making about whether D should start to spend overnight stays with his father.
The local authority would have a duty to promote direct contact between C and her father. Rather than just accepting the failure of the unsupported attempt to reinstate contact, the local authority would be under a duty to consider whether a further attempt should be made, how that attempt should be planned for and undertaken, and to support the attempt should it take place.
The local authority would have a duty to promote indirect contact between the children and their father. Rather than just accepting the mother’s decision to place the father’s communications in a box, the local authority would be empowered to advise and challenge the mother’s decision making.
The local authority would be under a duty to support the provision of services to the family, including the proposed mental health support from CAMHS. The local authority would need to consider what other services it could provide, including whether Z’s role should be undertaken by another therapist.
The local authority would be under a duty to continue to assess and monitor the mother’s parenting of the children, including the impact of what it describes as the enmeshed, dysfunctional relationships.
Furthermore, it would send a clear message to the local authority to rethink their plans and to consider the concerns set out in this judgment, the concerns articulated by the Guardian and the necessity of obtaining input from Dr Gomes before any final decisions are reached.
In the highly unusual circumstances of this case it seems to me that an interim care order is a necessary and proportionate interference in the Article 8 rights of this family. It represents, in my judgement, the least interventionist course consistent with the children’s welfare. It will not involve interim separation of the children from their mother, because that is not the local authority’s plan. It will however ensure that the local authority shares parental responsibility for each of these children over the next 8 weeks. What happens then will be an open question for consideration at that time.