D (A Child: Private Law Proceedings)

In private law children proceedings, a supervision order requires reasonable cause to believe that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and that the order serves the child’s welfare interests. Prolonged exposure to parental conflict, hostility and inadequate parental boundaries may amount to significant emotional harm. A child’s wishes and feelings are important but must not be given decisive weight or allowed to determine contact arrangements. Parents must provide appropriate guidance and support the child’s relationship with both parents. Where entrenched conflict prevents informed and effective arrangements, the court may need to hear full evidence before making child arrangements and welfare decisions.

The proceedings concerned D, aged 10, whose parents had been involved in prolonged and highly contentious private law litigation concerning her relationship with her father. There had been numerous hearings and repeated attempts at compromise, but no final evidential hearing had taken place.

The court considered why D’s relationship with her father had remained troubled, what arrangements should govern the time spent with him, and whether there was a proper basis for an interim supervision order. The central issues were whether D had suffered significant emotional harm through exposure to adult conflict and whether supervision was in her welfare interests.

1. Supervision order. The making of an interim supervision order required reasonable cause to believe that D had suffered significant harm and satisfaction that the order was in her welfare interests. Having heard evidence over four days, the judge made final findings which went beyond the statutory threshold of reasonable cause to believe. D was suffering significant emotional harm attributable to the parents’ conduct over almost four years.
2. Source of harm. Both parents and the mother’s partner had exposed D to adult conflict and hostility. D was aware of the mother’s negative feelings towards the father and the father’s hostility towards the mother’s partner. She had aligned herself with her primary carer as a means of coping with the conflict.
3. Parental responsibility and the child’s views. D’s wishes and feelings were important considerations, but they could not take priority over all other welfare factors. It was unacceptable for the mother to leave major decisions about contact to a 10-year-old child. The mother had to provide guidance and boundaries, while the father had to moderate his conduct and criticism of the mother’s partner.
4. Contact arrangements. The existing supervised or closely managed arrangements were fundamentally unsuitable. Contact was to move to the paternal grandmother’s home, increase beyond three hours and progress to full days and, shortly thereafter, weekends at the father’s home.
5. Orders and further guidance. D’s welfare required a supervision order. The local authority’s plan was endorsed and was to be implemented immediately. A final order was made in the private law proceedings, with any further judicial involvement arising within the public law process.
6. Wider observation. The case demonstrated the importance of hearing full evidence in private law disputes resistant to early compromise. A proper understanding of the causes of parental conflict may be necessary to make informed, child-centred and effective arrangements.