A Mother (M) v A Father (F) & Ors

In determining child arrangements, the wishes and feelings of children aged 10 and 11 may carry significant weight, particularly where they are clear, consistent and independently expressed. The court may decline to impose direct contact or therapeutic reunification work where the proposed arrangements are not shown to advance the children’s welfare. A parent’s fixed views, lack of insight, coercive communications and failure to maintain existing indirect contact may be relevant to the assessment of future contact. A s.91(14) order may be appropriate where prolonged proceedings have become harmful and the children and resident parent require a substantial break from litigation.

The proceedings concerned a longstanding dispute about contact between separated parents and their two children, aged 10 and 11. Earlier child arrangements orders had provided for direct contact, but there had been no face-to-face contact since August 2021. The children’s Guardian recommended that the children live with the mother and that contact with the father remain indirect, with any progression informed by the children.

The father sought further professional intervention, including a Family Assistance Order and engagement with Children and Family Solutions, with the aim of progressing to direct contact. The mother ultimately opposed compulsory involvement with that organisation. The central issues were the children’s welfare, the weight to be given to their wishes and feelings, the appropriate form of contact, and whether a s.91(14) order should be made.

Application determined. The court ordered that the children should continue to live with the mother and that contact with the father should remain indirect on the existing model. The court imposed no requirement to engage with Children and Family Solutions and made a s.91(14) order for 2.5 years.

1. The children’s wishes and feelings were clear, consistent and extended beyond the frightening August 2021 incident. At their ages, those views carried significant weight. The court would require a good deal before overriding them.
2. The father’s approach was centred on his own wishes and needs. He rejected concerns expressed by the children, disputed the expert evidence concerning his mental health, and showed little insight into their perspective. He had also failed to maintain indirect contact, thereby causing confusion for the children.
3. The father’s communications with the mother demonstrated a pattern of coercive control. His conduct was inconsistent with a child-focused approach and gave the court concern about the prospects of safely rebuilding the relationship through compulsory intervention.
4. Although the father sought a rapid transition to direct contact and professional reunification work, the court concluded that this would not presently serve the children’s best interests. Any progression to direct contact was left to the mother and children, without a judicial timetable or compulsory work with Children and Family Solutions.
5. The prolonged litigation, which had occupied much of the children’s lives, justified a s.91(14) order. The period of 2.5 years was selected to cover both children’s transition to secondary school and allow the younger child time to settle.

The court’s assessment was reinforced by the findings and assessment recorded in HHJ Booth’s earlier judgment concerning the father’s mental health and presentation.

This was a first-instance determination in the High Court (Family Division). The judgment describes earlier child arrangements proceedings and orders made by consent in 2016 and 2019, together with related proceedings concerning another child which concluded on 24 August 2022.