F v R & Ors

In determining residence and contact, the court must prioritise the children’s welfare and assess the practical risks created by parental conflict. A parent’s love for, and positive interaction with, children does not outweigh serious risks of abduction, emotional harm, or the children being drawn into sustained hostility between the parents. Where those risks remain substantial and the parent shows no sufficient insight or sustained change, contact may properly be restricted to closely supervised arrangements. The court may also direct psychological assessment and defer wider contact proposals until the risks have been assessed.

The father and mother applied for residence and contact orders concerning their two children following the breakdown of their relationship. The father proposed that the children should spend approximately half of each year with him in Mexico and the remainder with their mother in England. The mother sought residence, continuation of protective restrictions, and strictly supervised contact.

The proceedings had been transferred from the Northampton County Court to the High Court because of their international dimension and the developing concerns about the father’s conduct. Contact had previously been suspended and later took place on a supervised basis. The central issues were the risk of abduction, the effect of the father’s hostility and abusive conduct on the mother and children, and whether contact could safely take place without supervision.

1. Outcome. The mother was granted a residence order. The father was directed to have supervised contact in circumstances providing sufficient safeguards. Psychological assessments of both parents were approved, with a directions hearing to follow receipt of the report.
2. The father had a warm and affectionate relationship with the children and demonstrated significant parenting strengths during supervised contact. Those positive features did not remove the risks arising from his sustained hostility towards the mother and towards professionals and others whom he regarded as opposing him.
3. The father’s conduct, including harassment, threats, attempts to locate the children, disregard of undertakings and court orders, and the attempt to obtain replacement passports, justified the mother’s fear of abduction. The risk was serious notwithstanding Mexico’s status as a Hague Convention country, because removal would cause distress and require the mother to trace the children and pursue proceedings.
4. The evidence established that the children had already been affected by the parental conflict. They were unsettled, anxious and vulnerable, and there was little prospect of the parents arranging contact cooperatively while the father remained hostile and lacked insight into the consequences of his behaviour.
5. Strict supervision was therefore necessary unless and until the father demonstrated a substantial and maintained change in conduct. The court adjourned the broader question of the proposed six-monthly arrangements in Mexico because, while contact remained supervised, that issue did not arise. The possible making of an order under unknown section 91(14) was left for consideration after the assessment.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.