T( A Child) (s9(6) Children Act 1989 orders: Exceptional Circumstances: Parental Alienation), Re

Under section 9(6) of the Children Act 1989, a section 8 order may continue after a child’s sixteenth birthday only where the circumstances are exceptional. The statutory exception has its ordinary meaning. A case may be exceptional because of parental alienation and the risk that contact will otherwise end, but exceptional circumstances do not require an order which is futile or contrary to the welfare of a mature child. The child’s best interests remain decisive. For an older and mature child, wishes and feelings carry particular weight, while the court must also consider the benefit of maintaining a relationship with the other parent. The court may therefore continue contact until the child reaches 16, but decline to extend the order to 18 where it would be unworkable.

The proceedings concerned whether contact between a 15-year-old boy and his father should continue, and whether any Children Act 1989 section 8 order should extend beyond the boy’s sixteenth birthday. The mother sought termination of contact, relying principally on the boy’s wishes and feelings. The father sought an order continuing contact until age 18.

The family had been involved in extensive earlier proceedings. Findings had repeatedly been made that the mother had undermined the children’s relationship with their father and influenced their rejection of him. Following an appeal from a Circuit Judge’s order requiring contact until age 18, the present court reconsidered the arrangements after receiving a guardian’s report and meeting the children.

1. Outcome. The court continued the contact order until T’s sixteenth birthday, but declined to extend it to age 18. Mid-week contact was discontinued, while the remaining arrangements continued. The court also made a section 91(14) order until T reached 18.
2. Section 9(6) of the Children Act 1989 provides that a section 8 order ending after the child reaches 16 may be made only where the circumstances are exceptional. The word exceptional has its ordinary meaning. The statutory provision is directed to cases where the facts justify continuing protective judicial involvement beyond the usual age limit.
3. The court accepted that this was capable of being an exceptional case. The longstanding findings of parental manipulation meant that, without an order, contact would probably cease altogether. The father was nevertheless a loving parent who could provide emotional support and assist with T’s development, despite being insensitive and sometimes inappropriate.
4. T’s wishes and feelings had particular significance because of his age and maturity. They had been materially influenced by the mother and older siblings, but the court nevertheless gave them substantial weight. The court had to balance them against T’s emotional needs and the benefit of preserving his relationship with his father.
5. An order continuing contact until 18 would not be workable. From age 16, it would be futile and inappropriate to compel contact against T’s settled wishes. Conversely, making no order would, on the evidence, bring contact to an end immediately. The proportionate welfare outcome was therefore a limited order ending at 16.
6. The court directed that the father should be able to take T to, or collect him from, rowing activities, while arrangements could be made to avoid unnecessary embarrassment to T.

• High Court (Family Division): The court had previously allowed an appeal against a Circuit Judge’s order of 6 June 2022 requiring contact to continue until T was 18. The matter was then listed for a final hearing, resulting in the present order continuing contact only until T’s sixteenth birthday.