V & Ors (Children), Re

In determining arrangements for children, welfare remains the paramount consideration. The court should make a defined contact order only where it is satisfied that making an order serves the children’s interests better than making none. Where parental hostility has entrenched children’s opposition to contact, the court may preserve workable arrangements and leave further contact to parental agreement. It should avoid imposing changes that risk drawing another child into the same harmful dynamic. The judgment also emphasises that parents must take responsibility for communicating practically and should not place the consequences of their conflict upon their children.

The parents had separated after a distressed marriage. A consent order made in 2012 provided that the two boys would live with their father, the daughter would live with her mother, and the children would spend time with the parent with whom they did not live. The father applied for the daughter to live with him. The mother sought enforcement of contact with at least one of the boys, whose contact had ceased.

The court heard evidence from both parents and a social worker, and met the two boys. Both boys firmly opposed contact with their mother, while the daughter continued to have enjoyable contact with her father. The central issues were whether residence should be changed, whether defined contact orders should be made, and how the parents’ inability to communicate should be addressed.

1. Welfare and residence. The welfare of each child, considered individually and collectively, was the paramount consideration. The father’s application for a residence order in respect of the daughter was dismissed. The residence arrangements made by consent in 2012 remained in force.
2. Defined contact. The court had to be satisfied that making a contact order was more in the children’s interests than making no order. In the circumstances, no defined contact order was justified. The court discharged the contact arrangements in the 2012 order and ordered instead that the children should have such contact with the parent with whom they did not live as the parents should agree.
3. Assessment of the children’s circumstances. The boys’ entrenched opposition to their mother was unlikely to change while they saw no communication between their parents and did not see their father engaging with their mother. The court was not prepared to impose changes to the daughter’s arrangements which might draw her into the same dynamic and risk alienation from either parent. Her existing Sunday contact with her father was recorded, with collection arrangements designed to prevent the boys being used as intermediaries.
4. Parental responsibility. The parents’ inability to speak to each other was harmful to all three children. The judgment recorded their agreement to attempt mediation, with the aim of developing practical communication without recrimination. The parents were reminded that the present situation was not an acceptable long-term solution and that the boys should continue to reflect on the possibility of seeing their mother.

This was a first-instance determination in proceedings begun in May 2013. A consent order had previously been made by District Judge Knifton on 11 September 2012. The present court dismissed the father’s residence application, discharged the earlier defined contact arrangements and made a contact-by-agreement order.