P v C & Ors

In child-arrangements proceedings, the welfare of each child remains the paramount consideration. A child’s wishes and feelings must be considered as facts, with their reliability assessed in context; they are not automatically decisive. A change of residence may be justified where contact has ceased or virtually ceased and the child is deeply resistant to the other parent, but it is not a default response to parental alienation. The court must assess the evidence objectively, focusing on conduct and its effect rather than attempting to determine a parent’s state of mind. A supervision order may be preferable to a family assistance order where continuing oversight is required. Restrictions on further applications under section 91(14) require a discretionary balancing exercise between welfare and access to the court.

The proceedings concerned two children and competing proposals about their future residence and contact. Their father sought orders transferring their residence from England to Sweden. Their mother opposed the move and proposed continued contact. Following an earlier fact-finding judgment, the court had found that the mother had caused the children significant emotional harm by influencing their views and obstructing contact. Contact had nevertheless resumed and was continuing. The local authority and children’s guardian ultimately opposed a move and supported continued residence in England with professional intervention. The central issues were the reliability and weight of the children’s wishes and feelings, whether a change of residence was necessary and proportionate, and which protective and case-management orders should be made.

1. Residence and welfare. The application to transfer the children’s residence to Sweden was dismissed. Applying section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the court treated the welfare of each child as paramount and applied the welfare checklist. The children’s different needs, schools, family relationships, wishes and feelings, and the likely consequences of removal were assessed separately.
2. Wishes and feelings. The children’s wishes and feelings were questions of fact requiring straightforward analysis. Their reliability had to be assessed by examining their circumstances and the influence of their mother. The marked change from hostility to contact to relaxed and continuing contact supported the conclusion that the mother’s conduct had changed, but it did not justify treating the children’s current wishes as wholly dependent. The court placed substantial weight on views expressed to independent professional witnesses.
3. Change of residence. A transfer may require consideration where contact has completely or virtually ceased and the children are deeply resistant to all contact. Here, contact had resumed at substantial levels, including overseas stays and electronic communication. The proposed move would cause multiple losses and carried a high risk of breakdown. The evidence did not establish that forced removal would produce better long-term outcomes.
4. Evidence. The court assessed the mother’s change through her actions, the children’s presentation and professional observations. It avoided attempting to penetrate her psyche. The expert recommendation for removal lacked sufficient support concerning the long-term effects, likely distress, and practical arrangements for supervised contact.
5. Orders. A supervision order was made under section 31 because the threshold was crossed and continuing local-authority oversight was required. A section 91(14) order was also made after balancing the children’s welfare against the parents’ access to the court. Existing contact arrangements continued.

First-instance decision. The judgment records an earlier fact-finding judgment in the same proceedings under [2017] EWFC 23.