M (Children : Residency/Contact : No 3)

In welfare proceedings, the court may continue supervision where the children’s arrangements and relationships remain fragile. Contact may be increased in stages and made subject to protective conditions where necessary to safeguard the children’s relationship with the resident parent and their welfare.

Costs do not ordinarily follow the event in family proceedings. An order may nevertheless be justified where a party’s conduct before or during the proceedings, or the manner in which the case was pursued, was unreasonable or reprehensible. The court has a wide discretion and may order a non-party to contribute to publicly funded costs where that conduct caused the litigation.

The proceedings concerned two children, B and C, and followed earlier judgments concerning their residence and care. B had been placed in the local authority’s care during a transition to living with the mother. By the hearing, the children were living with the mother and contact with the father was supervised.

The issues were residence, the future basis of the children’s living arrangements, contact with the father and extended paternal family, whether proceedings should continue, and costs. The mother sought protective orders and continued oversight. The father sought a final hearing and less restrictive contact. The guardian supported a cautious progression of contact and further work with the children.

1. Welfare and residence. The court confirmed that B and C should live with their mother. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 provided the framework for deciding the welfare issues.
2. Contact. Contact with the father had developed positively but required time and further assessment. July contact was to remain supervised. From August, fortnightly contact could increase to approximately two hours of unsupervised contact, with handovers at the contact centre.
3. Contact was subject to conditions that the father must not speak ill of the mother or undermine the children’s life with her, and that there was to be no contact with other members of his family. Breach of the latter condition would result in suspension of contact.
4. The court declined to end its involvement. Given the history, the fragility of the children’s position and the need to assess contact and the father’s progress towards independent living, the case was adjourned for further directions in December. A family assistance order was made or contemplated to provide parenting support.
5. Contact with the wider paternal family was refused for the time being. Any later application would require cogent evidence of changed perception and perspective within the family.
6. Costs. The court had a wide discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and rules 28.1 and 28.2 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Costs did not ordinarily follow the event in family proceedings, but the grandmother’s conduct was found to have been unreasonable and reprehensible before and during the proceedings. A summary costs order of £70,000 was made against her. No order for costs was made against the father, having regard to his circumstances and vulnerability.
7. The grandmother was discharged as a party and ordered to have no contact with the children. The court directed that relevant transcripts and judgments be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of possible investigation.

Not stated in the judgment. The decision was a first-instance determination in ongoing High Court family proceedings.