The Father v The Mother & Ors

An application to reopen findings of fact requires solid grounds for believing that a rehearing could produce a different outcome. The court must balance finality, the children’s welfare, delay, resources, the importance of truth, the nature of the findings and the quality of the new evidence.

A later autism diagnosis does not itself justify reopening. The court must ask whether it could realistically alter the welfare decision, including the practical impact of the parent’s conduct and the children’s wishes and feelings.

The proceedings concerned three children living with their mother after earlier private-law proceedings between the parents. A 2021 fact-finding judgment made adverse findings about the father’s conduct. Direct contact later ceased after an incident involving derogatory comments about the mother, and a 2023 order provided for indirect contact only.

The father, diagnosed with autism in 2024, sought to reopen the 2021 findings, obtain permission to make a further child arrangements application and replace the Cafcass guardian with an independent social worker. The mother sought an extension of the s.91(14) restriction until the children reached 18 and a costs order. The central issue was whether the diagnosis and other alleged procedural or welfare concerns gave a realistic prospect of a different decision.

1. Applications refused and restriction made. The applications to reopen the 2021 fact-finding judgment and to make a further child arrangements application were refused. A s.91(14) order was made until the children’s 18th birthdays. The father was ordered to pay the mother’s costs of £5,900.63.
2. Reopening test. The court applied the three-stage approach summarised in J (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact): whether reconsideration should be permitted; the extent of investigation and evidence; and the review hearing. At the first stage the court balances finality against sound welfare decisions and considers delay, resources, truth, the significance of the findings and the quality and relevance of further evidence.
3. Diagnosis and welfare. The autism diagnosis was accepted for the applications but had limited relevance to whether further contact was in the children’s best interests. The fact-finding judgment had not itself caused direct contact to stop. Whether the father’s conduct arose from neurodiversity did not materially alter its impact on the mother or children.
4. Children’s wishes. The children consistently opposed further contact and wished the proceedings to end. The older child was 14, making compelled contact exceptionally unlikely to be in her best interests. There was no evidential basis for parental alienation.
5. Costs. Although costs do not ordinarily follow the event in family proceedings, the father’s unfounded allegations, coercive litigation conduct and reliance on fabricated authorities justified a costs order.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier orders and applications in the same family proceedings, but gives no citation for the 2021 fact-finding judgment or the October 2023 final order.