JVW v KT

In determining a child’s residence, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. A court should be slow to alter a long-established care arrangement where the resident parent provides good day-to-day care, unless there is clear evidence of continuing harm or a serious risk of harm. Where the harm arises from the resident parent’s attitude towards the child’s relationship with the other parent, the court may allow an opportunity for that parent to understand and remedy the problem, provided this remains compatible with the child’s best interests. Continued residence may properly be made subject to close judicial supervision, therapeutic work and evidence that the necessary changes are genuine and sustained.

The father applied for an order that the parties’ seven-year-old child should cease living with the mother in Devon and return to live with him in London. The mother had moved with the child from London to Devon without adequately involving the father, and the proceedings focused on the child’s relationship with both parents, the effect of parental conflict, and the mother’s conduct in relation to the father’s role.

Following an earlier interim hearing, contact with the father increased substantially. Expert evidence indicated marked improvement but identified a continuing risk that the child’s relationship with his father would be undermined if the mother’s attitude did not change. The central issue was whether the improvements were genuine and sufficiently durable to justify the child remaining with the mother under supervision.

1. Welfare and residence. The child’s welfare was the paramount consideration. There were no concerns about the ordinary care provided by either parent, but the child’s relationship with his father had been damaged by parental conflict, negative attitudes and the mother’s failure sufficiently to promote that relationship.
2. Opportunity to remedy harm. A court should not readily change residence where a child has spent his life in the care of one parent and has a strong and beneficial bond with that parent. Such a change requires clear evidence that the child has suffered harm which will continue, or is at serious risk of suffering harm. The court should generally allow the resident parent an opportunity to understand and remedy the problem, provided that course remains consistent with the child’s best interests.
3. Assessment of the evidence. The increased contact had produced substantial improvement. The mother had belatedly accepted the importance of actively supporting the child’s relationship with his father, including the significance of language used within her household. The judge accepted that the improvement could not be attributed to increased contact alone, but considered that its sincerity and durability had not yet been sufficiently tested.
4. Supervised continuation. It was in the child’s best interests to remain living with the mother for the time being, rather than suffer the acute disruption of an immediate move to London. That arrangement required continued court supervision, therapy involving relevant members of the mother’s household, mediation, a parenting plan and a review. The mother had to sustain and develop the changes required to promote the father’s relationship with the child. The father also had to support the therapeutic and parental work and avoid allowing justified anger to impair the child’s relationship with the mother.
5. The application for an immediate change of residence was refused. The child was to remain with the mother subject to the agreed therapeutic arrangements and further review.