Re C (A Child) (Parental Order & Child Arrangements Order No 4)

In determining child arrangements, the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration. Where parental and child rights under Article 8 are in tension, the child’s rights prevail. Contact may properly remain supervised for the long term where the evidence establishes a substantial risk that unsupervised contact would expose the child to harmful parental conflict or damaging views about the other parent. The frequency of contact must be calibrated to the child’s welfare and the identified risk. The court may leave practical matters, including the identity of a supervisor and the timing of contact with half-siblings, to a trusted resident parent where that parent has demonstrated sound judgment and commitment to the child’s welfare.

The court determined final welfare issues concerning a four-year-old child, C. The issues included the frequency and supervision of the mother’s direct and video contact, the circumstances and timing in which C should learn about and meet his half-siblings, and the mother’s application for a prohibited steps order preventing the father from taking C outside England and Wales.

The proceedings followed three earlier judgments in the same matter. The central question was what arrangements best promoted C’s welfare in light of the mother’s continuing campaign against the father and the resulting risk of emotional and psychological harm.

1. Welfare and rights. The court applied s 1(1) and the relevant factors in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. C’s welfare best interests were paramount. Although the court had regard to the parties’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights, where a parent’s Article 8 rights conflicted with C’s Article 8 rights, C’s rights prevailed, applying Yousef v Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210.
2. Supervision and frequency. Having regard to the totality of the evidence and its previous findings, the court found a high likelihood that the mother would communicate distorted and negative views about the father, causing serious emotional and psychological harm. Contact therefore had to remain supervised for the foreseeable future. It was restricted to six direct sessions each year. Video contact was fixed at once every two weeks. The court considered the guidance in Re S (A Child): (Child Arrangements Order: Effect of Long-Term Supervised Contact on Welfare) [2016] 2 FLR 217 and Re A (A Child) (supervised contact) (s 91(14) Children Act 1989 orders) [2021] 1 FLR 1019.
3. Practical arrangements. The court declined to require professional supervision. The father was trusted to decide whether supervision should continue through C’s nanny or later be provided professionally. No timetable was imposed for C’s introduction to his half-siblings; this was left to the father’s child-focused judgment. The prohibited steps application was dismissed.

The judgment states that it should be read with three previous judgments in the same proceedings, dated 17 April 2020, 3 August 2020 and 15 November 2021. No appellate decision is stated.