[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> C (A Child), Re [2025] EWFC 47 (B) (04 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/47.html Cite as: [2025] EWFC 47 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

In the Family Court at Sheffield
In the Matter of Section 8 the Children Act 1989
And in the Matter of C a child

		4th March 2025

PREFACE AND SUMMARY OF DECISION:

1. This judgment follows a further three days of evidence and submissions in this sad and very long running case involving a young girl now approaching her 12^th birthday. To preserve confidentiality, I shall refer to her as "the child" or by the letter "C" as the abbreviation of "child".
2. It is nothing short of a tragedy that this young person has been the subject of rancorous litigation for the best part of five years. In total she has been the subject of litigation in the family court practically constantly for nearly nine years; over two thirds of her life so far. It is safe to say that she probably cannot remember a time when her parents were not in conflict about her.
3. In more than 17 years of experience as a fulltime judge presiding in matters such as this I cannot recall a case as difficult and depressing as this one. To strive for the perfect solution in family disputes would be to undertake an impossible task but it is instinctive to all family court judges and in accordance with our paramount consideration being the child's welfare, that we feel bound to do our utmost to secure the best possible outcome for the child. However, the most depressing and disappointing aspect of this case is that none of the options I have been presented with could possibly be described as a solution. Each one is likely to bring a risk of significant emotional and psychological harm to an already troubled young person. I have had a deep sense of unease having been obliged to identify the least worst option or "the best of a bad lot".

Decision

4. Conscious as I am that my decision is not in accordance with the recommendations of the Guardian, social workers and the jointly appointed expert psychologist Dr Downs, I nevertheless feel entitled and indeed bound to depart from those recommendations. I do not criticise the Guardian's approach to his analysis of a case that he too has found very difficult. However, he presents his recommendation as very much the least worst option. After lengthy reflection, I have come to a different conclusion as to what is the least worst option. I have concluded that the professionals including the Guardian and a Consultant Psychologist have not placed sufficient weight on the wishes and feelings of the child. Furthermore, I have formed the view that although a return of the child to the mother is not without risk, that risk is justified and outweighed by the strong likelihood of C suffering emotional harm if she were compelled to remain in the care of the father and his wife. I do not find that the professionals have attached sufficient weight to the significant liklihood of emotional harm to the child if she remains where she is and they have placed too much weight on the more imponderable risk of emotional harm if she were to return to her mother in accordance with her consistent and robustly stated wishes.
5. Furthermore, I feel able to depart from the recommendations of Dr Downs because the complexion of the case has changed since she gave evidence and I have heard further evidence that she was not privy to.
6. Accordingly, I intend to make a Child Arrangements Order that provides for C to return to and live with the mother and to spend time with her father. My reasons follow below. The judgment that follows is inevitably lengthy and for that I apologise.
7. Numbers in square brackets thus [ x ] are references to pages in the electronic bundle of Adobe pdf documents.

INTRODUCTION

8. There is a long and complicated history to this case but the issues I am dealing with now arise as a consequence of my former colleague Her Honour Judge Trotter Jackson having ordered on January 27^th 2023 that C should move to live with her father and for the time being have only supervised family time with her mother. Prior to that order the Respondent mother had been C's primary carer and she had spent time in the care of her father either by agreement or more usually pursuant to Child Arrangement Orders of the Family Court.
9. This case was before me on 29^th July last year for what was intended to be a final hearing. The case did not conclude then. I adjourned it part heard and ordered Children's Service to prepare a Section 37 report. I delivered a written judgment explaining the reasons why I felt that it was necessary to take that course. I identified the matters that led me to believe that there was a pressing need for the child and the parents to have the opportunity to engage in therapy to address the highly dysfunctional family dynamics. It was also clear to me that C had already suffered significant emotional harm and that the threshold for the court to make a care or supervision order was clearly crossed. The financial circumstances of the parties meant that there was no way for them to fund therapy even if they were able to source a suitable package of treatment and were motivated to engage.
10. In hope rather than optimism I invited the local authority to consider seriously the commencement of public law proceedings and in due course fund a course of therapy. As matters have turned out my hope was misplaced, and the local authority has declined my strong invitation to intervene. Rather oddly the local authority's report appears to accept that the child has suffered significant emotional harm but yet concludes that the statutory threshold to justify their intervention has not been crossed, despite my judgment having confirmed that it was.
11. As is often the case in the most troubling of private children disputes there is little if any prospect that C and her parents will ever receive the sort of therapy that they need anytime soon and possibly never.
12. The case has now resumed over six months further down the line. Some things have changed but the core issues remain unresolved and as challenging as ever. The local authority has at least recognised the awful situation that C finds herself in and for now at least, she is the subject of a "child in need" plan. Despite having found frequent engagement with professionals difficult and distressing, C has apparently been able to establish a reasonably good relationship with the principal social worker. My suggestion has been acted upon and efforts have been made to give C an opportunity to confide in someone when she needs to. However, it is desperately upsetting to read in the social worker's evidence that C has said that she cannot talk to her parents about her worries for fear that she will get into trouble. For an 11-year-old girl on the verge of puberty, to be unable to seek reassurance and guidance from her parents or to confide in them about her worries is a terrible state of affairs.
13. The father's funds have dried up and although he remains employed, he is now an insolvent litigant in person. He tells me that an IVA has been set up to manage his debts of almost £100,000 which he says have accrued because he has funded privately the lengthy litigation whilst the mother has been in receipt of public funding. As for the mother she tells me that her fragile emotional state has prevented her from earning an income for some time and she is in receipt of Universal Credit. Her distress has been obvious and every day she has appeared to be openly weeping or on the verge of it. She broke down uncontrollably on three occasions, once at the end of her oral evidence in July and twice in the February hearing at the end of her oral evidence and again when she could not bear to listen to the father's criticisms of her during his closing submissions.
14. C has continued to express a steadfast wish to return to live with her mother. She has told the Guardian that she is unhappy with the current arrangements and if she can't live with her mother, she would want to spend much more time with her. A feature of the evidence I heard in the Summer was that C's teachers had reported that shortly after moving to live with her father, she had continued to allege that her father and stepmother were hitting her. Those allegations were not substantiated and were consistent with Judge Trotter Jackson's previous findings that C's previous allegations were not true and were made to reinforce her argument, and that of her mother, that she should not be forced to spend time in the care of her father and stepmother. A notable positive aspect of the case now is that there have been no further incidents of C making any false allegations of ill treatment by the stepmother or father.
15. It would have been surprising had there been no additional troubling developments in this case and indeed there have been. Unsurprisingly, they concern yet again, things that C is reported to have said to one parent about the behaviour of the other. The father has reported that C has said that her mother has at one time or another instructed her to tell lies about her father and to misbehave so that she is sent home. She has also told him that she had been told by the mother to throw juice over the stepmother on his wedding day in 2022 and she is reported to also have made the odd comment that Mummy "treats me like a horse or a dog".
16. Typically, there is a total divergence in the parents' interpretation of the child's "disclosures". The father's position is that this is evidence of ongoing attempts by the mother to undermine his relationship with C and to destabilise C's placement with him. He says I should accept what C has said as evidence of the mother coaching C. For her part the mother denies ever having said the things alleged and she contends that the father has coached and compelled C to lie to the new social worker under threat of never being allowed to see her mother again. I find these respective positions typical and reflective of the parents' mistrust and contempt for one another. Sadly, a regular feature of this case has been each parent's readiness to construe or indeed misconstrue many things that C says or does in a way that fits their own agenda.
17. While exploring with the father the circumstances in which C is alleged to have made her disclosures, very troubling evidence emerged, which seems to depict a rather, insensitive and authoritarian regime in the father's household. Furthermore, examples emerged of both the father and the stepmother lacking insight, empathy, and sensitivity into C's emotional welfare. I must examine these matters further below.
18. The Guardian's position has remained unchanged since July last year at least as regards his final recommendations. However, he does have have some very serious worries about the ability of the father and stepmother to meet C's emotional needs especially as she approaches her teenage years and the onset of puberty. He was so troubled about what he heard about their handling of what I will call "the laundry incident" that he has made a referral to social services.
19. In as far as the child wishes to see even more of her mother if she is not allowed to return to her care, the Guardian's recommendation is that she should in fact see less of her. He has recommended that even the video contact be reduced in frequency and that direct face to face supervised contact be reduced from four hours per fortnight to four hours every six weeks to coincide with school holidays. He recommends that the direct face to face sessions should be professionally supervised in the community and that the retired family friends who have acted as supervisors should be relieved of the task. Although he does not welcome the additional financial obligation to fund the contact the father supports the plan and has told me that he can commit to paying the contact fees until the mother can be expected to contribute to them as well. As to when that time might arrive is anyone's guess.
20. In the earlier judgment in July I set out a good deal of the background to this sad saga. I must put the decisions I have now made into a proper evidential context so I find myself borrowing extensively from the judgment I delivered then. There is therefore some necessary repetition for which I again apologise.
21. The applicant mother and respondent father were in a relationship from September 2011 to about May 2016 when they separated. C would have been approaching her fourth birthday at that time. As I previously observed, it is shocking that these proceedings are still not concluded after more than four and a half years. There has been a striking absence of judicial continuity, and I am the 11^th different judge to have been involved. Two of the previous judges who have had conduct of the case have relocated to different courts out of the area and one has been absent for a long time due to serious long term health issues. It would be too simplistic and not entirely accurate to blame lack of judicial continuity for the fact that these proceedings have taken so long. The fact that the proceedings commenced during the height of the COVID 19 pandemic with all the logistical problems that came with it, has certainly not helped, but the biggest problem by far lies in the very nature of the dispute between the parents and their respective personalities which have led to a deeply entrenched inability to work collaboratively and cooperatively in the interests of their daughter. The father in both his most recent statement and in his oral submissions has criticised the court and the court process for prolonging matters and compounding the financial and emotional pressures on him.
22. There have been some unfortunate procedural hiccups along the way but the reality of the situation is that since the change in C's living arrangements in January 2023 there have been highly contentious issues over arrangements for C to see her mother and on most of the five review hearing dates the judge has been required to consider and rule upon some fresh development or other, such as the logistical arrangements for contact, complaints that arrangements for interim video contact have not been adhered to properly, allegations of inflammatory misuse of social media messaging and problems with identifying and retaining adequate supervisors. There have been seven further directions/review hearings since the supposed final hearing in January 2024 and a contested hearing before HHJ Baddeley to deal with the mother's ultimately unsuccessful objection to the father taking C to Australia to attend his brother's wedding. One hearing was listed to deal with an application by the father for his wife to have parental responsibility for C. As I observed when giving my judgment in July last year that I can think of nothing more likely to cause the mother to suspect that the father was trying to replace her as C's mother figure and I described it as being for any mother the unkindest cut of all. I am sceptical of the father's assertion that it was made on the advice of the Guardian and because the stepmother was undertaking much of the practical day to day care. It was an any view an ill conceived application. It was rightly dismissed by Judge Trotter Jackson because it was fundamentally defective anyway regardless of the merits and wisely a fresh application was not made.
23. Whilst interim "contact" arrangements have remained a fertile area for ongoing conflict the complexion of the dispute has changed again. I am now not just considering "contact" arrangements but the very challenging issue of where C should live is once again the primary focus. Just over two years after Judge Trotter-Jackson's robust judgment and order I have been faced with the argument from the mother that the plan has failed and I have been asked to reverse it.

Conduct of the hearing and evidence

24. The father had the benefit of representation by Counsel Ms Tai in July 2024 but he represented himself at the resumed hearing. Because the proceedings predate the coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act 2021, the provisions as to prohibition on cross examination of a vulnerable party or witness and the provision of a Qualified Legal Representative to conduct cross examination do not apply. However, the nature of this dispute, the clear emotional vulnerability of the mother and the entrenched positions of the parties left me in no doubt that it would have been wholly inappropriate for the mother to have been cross examined by the father.
25. At my invitation the father had prepared a list of proposed questions and to his credit he did not disagree with either my discretionary decisions to prohibit him from asking questions of the mother and to amend the list of questions so that they focussed on the areas that were relevant to my decisions. Counsel for the child put the questions to the mother, and I asked some related questions to clarify some of the questions and the mother's answers.
26. As for the mother she was accorded special measures including being always screened off from the father and having the support of an IDAS worker. She was simply too distressed to remain in court during the closing submissions from the father and the Guardian, and she was allowed to withdraw. In any event she has been very ably represented by her Counsel Mr Broadbent.
27. I have now heard evidence from the parents, from the jointly instructed Psychologist Dr Downs , two social workers and the Guardian. The electronic bundle now comprises 1910 pages. The documents were supplemented further by some email correspondence that was shared with me. I shall inevitably not refer to all the evidence but I have taken it all into account.

BACKGROUND

28. The parties met in 2011 and commenced a friendship, which later developed into a relationship. They had a shared interest in horses and in the army. They met at an officer training event. The father had spent 12 years in the army as a non commissioned soldier but he had an ambition to be an officer as did the mother.
29. The mother and father moved in with her parents at their home in September 2012. When the mother was pregnant with C, the parties moved to the paternal grandparents' home in Somerset, where C was born. The pregnancy was unplanned and the mother agonised as to whether to have a termination. The father told the mother it was her decision but that if she had the child, he would support her. The mother had also conceived early on in the relationship and had also agonised about the decision but she had gone ahead with the termination quite late on in the pregnancy. It remains something of a moot point as to how much the father contributed to her ultimate decision to have the termination and if he applied any pressure. The mother's evidence which I accept is that the father was less than enthusiastic at the prospect of becoming a father at that time but the mother herself was also far from convinced that she was ready to have a child at that time.
30. Upon C's birth there was some involvement from the Local Authority who, on the father's account were concerned about the mother struggling to bond with the baby. It is quite clear to me that the mother found her time in Somerset difficult. The father was studying at university and she often felt isolated, lonely and depressed. The father reports that for the first six months, he and the paternal grandmother provided a lot of care for the baby. Childrens Services were eventually satisfied that C was being adequately looked after and their involvement ceased. At the mother's request the family moved back to South Yorkshire.
31. It is clear from the history given by the parents to the psychologist Dr Downs that their relationship was complex and insecure. The mother clearly had mixed feelings about the father from the very start of their acquaintance, during the time that their relationship developed and in the short time that they were together. Whereas the mother may have identified common interests, these were never enough to cement their relationship. She has described the father pulling her in and then pushing her away. Looking back the mother undoubtedly feels that she was controlled by the father, but it could equally be the case that the feeling of being pulled in and yet pushed away could be another way of describing the mother's struggle to decide whether her decisions should be influenced by her head or her heart and the degree of doubt in her mind as to whether she was doing the right thing. It is also reflects the fact that there were aspects of the father she found attractive, at least at the start and others she found far less attractive.
32. Sadly, but inevitably as I find, the relationship failed, and it ended permanently in the early summer of 2016. The mother now looks back on her time with the father with a profound sense of regret and few if any happy memories. She undoubtedly feels that it was a mistake to continue with a relationship with the father. I have no doubt that she has communicated that to C because when the then nine year old C spoke with Dr Downs in or about January 2022 when Dr Downs was preparing the first report [C22], she said that her mother had made "the wrong choice". The mother, not unreasonably, feels that the relationship has failed at a very high cost to her. The unplanned pregnancy with C has of course been life changing. It put paid to her ambitions to go to Sandhurst and become an Army Officer. Whilst she loves C more than anything else, she was clearly not ready for motherhood at that time of her life and at that stage of a fragile relationship with the father. She has now lost the emotional, practical, and financial support of the father who she had hoped to make a family life with. Her experiences with him have apparently undermined her confidence and self-esteem to the point that she has felt unable to seek another partner. She has witnessed the father finding a new love and a new life with a younger woman and living a life that she herself has been denied. Her feelings about that have also been apparent to C; and that is clear from what she said to Dr Downs as recounted at [C83] of the bundle where she says of the stepmother, "She's not my mum, I already have a mum and I'm never going to have a second mum" and "She's 29 and I don't want a mum who is 29". It is notable that C also said of her father's plans to remarry, " I told my mum and she's even angrier than I am cos I don't want a second mum".
33. Since her own childhood the mother has had a passionate love of horses and the equestrian life, a passion that C has inherited and shared. Whilst the father has had some experience in these matters, he does not have anything like the mother's expertise and devotion. It is clear from the evidence that I have read that for him, one of the problems in the relationship was that he thought that the mother's pre-occupation with equestrian matters came at too much of a cost both in terms of money and time. Clearly, the keeping of horses is costly and he felt at times that he was, in effect, bank rolling the mother's equestrian interests and that those interests were more of a hobby than a profitable business enterprise.
34. Very shortly after their separation, the mother stopped the father's contact with C in June 2016. The parents were subsequently able to agree child arrangements through their respective solicitors but the arrangement was not maintained and the father issued the first set of proceedings which concluded with a child arrangements order ( C.A.O.) in January 2017.
35. The parents were back before the family court in April 2017 arguing about "Christmas contact" and another CAO was made. In July 2017 the mother stopped the father's contact again and the father applied to enforce the earlier order.
36. The litigation concluded on 23^rd April 2018 with another CAO, which provided for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father every three weekends and for an equal division of the school holidays, alternating Christmas arrangements and the child's birthday.
37. At the onset of the COVID 19 pandemic, the mother suspended contact again and the father initially applied on 26^th March 2020 to enforce the C.A.O. Later he applied for a live with C.A.O. Interim arrangements for C to see the father at his home were agreed but the mother stopped C seeing her father when she returned home after a weekend and she reported having suffered an injured mouth in an incident involving a jug. The father brought the matter back to court when the mother refused to reinstate contact and contact was reinstated by another order made on 22^nd December 2020.
38. Thereafter the child was joined as a party in her own right and the children's guardian obtained the court's permission for a psychological assessment of the parents. Dr Downs interviewed the child in the course of her work for the report. The case then progressed laboriously towards a final hearing on 6^th,7^th and 8^th September 2022. However, on 10^th August at C's pony club camp the father was arrested following an allegation by C herself that her father had assaulted her. Obviously, issues arising out of that changed the trajectory of the case again and the final hearing was vacated. At a hearing on 8^th September 2022 the mother agreed to the father's contact resuming despite her concerns about what had happened at the Pony Club Camp.
39. In her helpful written opening for the hearing in July, Counsel for the father set out a detailed chronology including the litigation history but I take up the story in January 2023 when her Honour Judge Trotter Jackson presided over a contested "rolled up" facts and welfare hearing.

The hearing in January 2023

40. The substantive welfare issues were fundamental and basic namely with which parent the child should live and what should be the arrangements for her to spend time with the parent with whom she was not living ? The father contended that she should be removed from her mother's care and placed with him and his wife. It was his case that the mother had previously unjustifiably obstructed arrangements for him to see his daughter. He contended that the mother simply could not promote a healthy relationship between he and the child and she could never be trusted to do so.
41. For her part the mother contended that the child was and would continue to be at risk of harm in the father's care. She raised several allegations alleging deliberate assaults and/or neglect of C at the hands of the father and/or his wife. The father's contrary position was that the allegations were false and constituted a pattern of alienating behaviour, the objective of which was to halt his time with C and to undermine the relationship.
42. Judge Trotter Jackson had before her Doctor Down's initial report and an addendum [C 114] Dr. Downs had met with each of the parents for five hours each, and with C for approximately two hours. In addition she observed C's interactions with each parent and made enquiries of C's school. I summarise Dr Downs report as follows:

The assessment is suggestive of C using, switching or adjusting her personality according to which parent she is spending time with and there was evidence of her beginning to use the psychological defence of splitting or the idealisation of one parent and the devaluing of the other.

There is evidence of C being influenced in her stated wishes and feelings regarding the father and her objections to having contact with him, due to concerns about the consequences for the mother. In the observation of contact there was no evidence to suggest that C was afraid of the father in stark contrast to her stated wish not to have contact with him and showing signs of distress. The fact she was presenting very differently in different situations was suggestive of her using "switching" which involves changing her whole personality in order to be acceptable to the parent she is with. She was beginning to adapt her behaviour and her stated thoughts and feelings to regulate (emotionally) the parent with whom they are becoming aligned, which means she is unable to express her true wishes and feelings. The assessment results are strongly suggestive of her being placed under pressure to align with the mother and the maternal family and to devalue the father and the paternal family, especially the stepmother. The language and terminology used by C was often quite adult and appeared like that used by the mother herself.

There is evidence to suggest that the relationship between the parents is highly dysfunctional. In Dr. Downs view, should the current situation continue, it will place C at risk of significant harm in terms of her emotional, psychological and social development and her ability to make and sustain adaptive and healthy relationships in the longer term. She will also be at increased risk of developing mental health problems and or psychiatric/personality disorders.

Dr. Downs comments that there is little by way of evidence to suggest that the father posed a risk to his daughter and during her observation of contact between father and daughter, she did not observe any interactions that would give her cause for concern, C appeared to be at ease with the father and his wife and enjoyed being in close physical contact with her father.

The father's psychometric testing is suggestive of his results being valid although some of his responses may have been designed to create a favourable impression. The results suggest he was not experiencing mental health problems at the time, and nothing that was likely to impact on his ability to provide care to C on a day-to-day basis. His scores were elevated on the histrionic scale suggestive of this being a significant personality trait (trait associated with exhibiting a desire for stimulation and affection and individuals behave in a manner designed to give outward appearance of confidence and self-assurance while having a deep desire for repeated signs of approval and having a fear of genuine autonomy).

The mother's psychometric results led to some concerns about the validity of her responses making it difficult to provide a comprehensive psychological conclusion. There was a high probability of her responses being designed to create a favourable impression, which means she is likely to have under-reported psychological/interpersonal difficulties. Her responses are not suggestive of her having problems with psychosis but having difficulty feeling emotionally connected with others and suggestive of her experiencing significant emotional distress as well as problems with anxiety. The mother also had elevated scores on the histrionic scale but in the assessment, evidence of this was not evident. The mother appeared to struggle to acknowledge any failings on her part, or any part she might have played in terms of harm to C and she projected blame onto the father.

Whilst C's school teacher confirmed that she was doing well in school in terms of educational functioning as well as relationships with peers and teaching staff, she had elevated scores on the depression, anxiety and anger scales, suggestive of her having problems of depression, anxiety and anger which was of significant concern.

There was evidence to suggest that the mother and possibly the wider maternal family had influenced C in their perception of the father. Despite his criticism of the mother and maternal grandparents, the father showed understanding of the importance of protecting C from exposure to the acrimony between he and the mother.

There is evidence of adultification and parentification and C appears to have been exposed to inappropriate information.

Dr. Downs states she has significant concerns about the mother's ability to separate C's needs from her own and to prioritise C's need to have a balanced relationship, and contact with both parents. In the assessment the mother struggled to see how not having a relationship with the father might be detrimental to C.

Dr. Downs considered that the family may benefit from therapeutic input, the focus of which must be on the facilitation of a positive relationship between both parents and providing conditions that will allow C to voice both positive and negative feelings in relation to both parents and wider families.

Dr. Downs opinion was that there is very little by way of evidence to suggest that the mother would be able to promote and facilitate C spending time on a regular and consistent basis with the father. The father showed some understanding of the importance of C having a relationship with both sides of the family and he stated he would not wish to undermine C's relationship with the mother and maternal family.

43. For her addendum report dated 18^th April 2022, Dr Downs had been asked to consider C's living arrangements, the likely emotional and psychological impact upon C of continuing her current living arrangements with the mother and how that compared to the likely emotional and psychological impact on C of a change in primary residence to the father's care. She was also to consider a shared care arrangement on an alternating weeks basis. Dr. Downs was also asked to consider what therapy could be recommended for the family. The summary of this report is as follows.

(i) Dr. Downs was not optimistic about contact between C and her father continuing should the current living arrangements remain. The current situation continuing would place C at risk of significant harm in terms of emotional, psychological and social development due to her being placed in a situation where she feels increasing pressure to align herself with her mother and devalue her father. This will lead to entrenchment of psychological defence mechanisms which will almost certainly impact on C's ability to make and sustain adaptive and healthy relationships in the longer term and will place her at higher risk of developing mental health problems, and/or psychiatric/personality disorders.

(ii) Dr Downs view was that her observations of the evidence did not indicate that C was being negatively influenced by the father (or paternal family) in relation to the mother or maternal family.

(iii) A shared care arrangement of alternating weeks might change the power dynamics making it more difficult for the parents to negatively influence C in relation to the other parent. Dr Downs goes on to say however that the impact of a change in school and additional travelling time would need to be considered in relation to the long-term impact on C of the current situation continuing and the continued risk of long-term harm on her emotional, psychological and social development.

(iv) To address C's long term psychological and emotional health needs, it will be crucial for her to be free to express her true wishes and feelings without having to split off or compartmentalise that part of herself that has loving feelings towards F and paternal family. If C continues to show negative opinions in relation to the father it may be necessary to suspend contact between C and her mother to allow her relationship with her father to be strengthened without being undermined.

(v) In terms of therapeutic input, Dr Downs had significant concerns about the mother's willingness and ability to engage with therapy. Recommendations as to the nature and provider of such therapy are set out in the report with the opinion that the therapeutic work should focus on work within the family and not C in her own right.

Cafcass reports

44. The first Section 7 report was completed by the child's guardian (CG), Nadira Ibrahim and the report is dated 7^th January 2021 and can be found in the Court bundle at [C10-17]. The report was completed shortly after the mother stopped contact following the incident in which it was alleged that the father's wife had struck C in the mouth with a jug. The report sets out that C has been emotionally affected by her parents' separation and the conflict that has been ongoing ever since. Direct work with C was undertaken at home, with mother in the next room as the mother did not consent to the C.G. speaking to C in school because she believed that when C was spoken to at school by a social worker she had been intimidated. C's social worker had in fact reported that when she saw C at school, the child was extremely positive about her father and spending time at his home, and neither she nor C's teacher considered C to have been upset. The headteacher also informed the CG that C had been prevented from attending school on multiple occasions as the mother had issues with father collecting C from school. The mother had also been observed by professionals to disengage with services regularly making it more difficult to work collaboratively. Having spoken to C the CG felt she was very aware of the conflict between the parents and she found it difficult to discuss the situation directly. She found it easier to speak in metaphors using her favourite toys, as she might be struggling with feelings of guilt and divided loyalties. She reported that C was at risk of suffering emotional harm because of being in the middle of her parents' conflict. She also felt that C had not been able to build a consistent relationship with the father as contact had been frequently interrupted. The CG recommended that the parents limit contact with one another, and both parents should implement what they had learned in the SPIP (which the mother had not completed again) and take further steps to improve their ability to co-parent in order to reduce the risk of further conflict. The social worker had informed the CG that involvement with the family would be progressed to Child In Need planning. The recommendation at that time was for an Enforcement order to ensure C was living with the mother and spending time with the father, reflecting the arrangements within the CAO.

CAFCASS Final Analysis:

45. This was again prepared by Ms Ibrahim in her capacity as CG and the report dated 1^st July 2022 is located within the trial bundle at [C122-133]. The report confirms that she met with father once, and mother twice; once alone, and once at home with C. The CG also saw C at school. The CG confirms she observed a close and loving bond between C and the father where C seemed comfortable and confident. At home C did not really want to discuss matters relating to her father and she was generally negative when the subject was raised. C said she didn't want to see the father but couldn't express why. At school, C was chatty and confident but became reserved and uncomfortable when the subject of her parents was mentioned. When discussing her father she indicated a negative view of him but was unable to give reasons why and C was unclear about her wishes and feelings. Because the CG felt that even the direct work had a noticeable emotional impact on C she decided that further direct work would not be meaningful or proportionate, particularly in light of all the professional involvement she had already had. Further direct work with C was likely to have a negative impact on her and would be unlikely to reveal anything of assistance. The CG sets outs the information gleaned from the two social workers and C's school that she appeared comfortable in the father's care and had spoken positively about he and his partner. The CG's conclusion was that she would normally consider C's wishes and feelings but in this case, C was unable to truly express her feelings because she was unduly emotionally pressured by the conflict between her parents, She was of the opinion that this will continue to cause her psychological harm as she gets older. The parents are both able to meet C's basic care needs and keep her safe from physical harm, but C's emotional safety and psychological wellbeing were equally important. The CG sets out that she had little trust in the mother's ability or commitment to move forward and to encourage C to spend time with the father, without the involvement of professionals or the Court. The CG did not consider that a shared care arrangement was in any way realistic given the geographical distance between the parents at opposite ends of the County and the ongoing conflict and such an arrangement would not prioritise C's needs. On that basis her recommendation was for C to move to father's care and to spend time with the mother on alternate weekends and some additional time during the week.

Guardian's Addendum report

46. This was undertaken by the CG following further evidence being filed from children's services and the parents. The report appears at [C134-140] and sets out that the CG visited C at father's home when C barely looked at her. She also claimed unconvincingly, that she didn't remember the CG. The CG felt that C still did not like discussing her parents. The CG observed warm, comfortable and happy interactions between C, her father and the stepmother. C relaxed during the visit but the CG still felt that it was not in C's interests to talk about her parents. The report sets out the most recent discussions the CG had with each of the parents. The CG sets out that since the Final Analysis there had been further allegations made against the father, which as previously have been unsubstantiated and that she is even more concerned about the significant involvement of C in each of these incidents requiring C to be spoken to by the police and social services and the continuing impact upon her. The CG reiterates and stands by the original recommendation for C to move to the father's primary care, although she sets out that if findings were made against the father and his wife at the final hearing, this would have to be reconsidered. If the Court made the findings sought by father against mother, this would reinforce her recommendation. The CG recommended that the parents should undertake further parenting work and therapy as previously suggested.

HHJ Trotter-Jackson's conclusions in January 2023

47. There is a transcript of Judge Trotter Jackson's judgment in the electronic bundle [A200]. It is clear from that judgment that Judge Trotter Jackson carried out a careful analysis of the evidence. It is also clear that she placed considerable weight on Dr Downs' two reports. Ultimately, she concluded that the mother had not proved any of her allegations. In fact, not only did she find that the allegations were not proved, but she decided that the allegations were either fabricated or at the very least exaggerated to put the father in the worst possible light and to shore up her own case and that C had been coached or manipulated into making false allegations about her father and stepmother. The allegation where C had accused the stepmother of hitting her in the face with a jug was found by the judge to not only have been exaggerated by C but that it was an innocent accident which had been deliberately imbued with a sinister significance by the mother as a deliberate attempt to put the father and his wife in the poorest light possible. The mother had used this alleged incident as a reason to suspend his time with C.
48. Judge Trotter Jackson concluded that the mother had made up or exaggerated innocent events with the aim of undermining and preventing the father's relationship with his daughter. In the circumstances she concluded that the mother had sought to alienate the father. She also concluded that C had been influenced by the mother's negativity towards the father and that C had "parroted" what the mother herself had said. She also concluded that the maternal grandparents had also played a part in influencing the child to profess a negative view of the father.
49. Neither parent had disagreed with Dr Downs' conclusion that C was being harmed by the acrimony between the parents but as is typical in these matters each blamed the other. Judge Trotter Jackson did not reserve her criticism for the mother. She found that the father had exhibited petty-mindedness and he had played his part in an acrimonious breakdown of the parents' relationship and they BOTH needed to do better. Nevertheless, she concluded that C had suffered emotional harm and that the mother was the primary cause.
50. After carrying out a careful analysis in the context of the Children Act Section 1(3) welfare checklist she decided to follow the recommendation of Dr Downs and the Guardian and ordered that C should move to live with the father.
51. In her statements of evidence the mother has been very critical of Dr Downs and she has accused her of promulgating pseudo science and nonsense. She has been no less critical of Judge Trotter Jackson for having placed too much reliance on what the mother says is invalid and unsafe evidence.

Continuing parental enmity

52. Judge Trotter Jackson's decision was far from the end of the matter nor could it have been because of the entirely foreseeable difficulties that lay ahead in the light of ongoing acrimony and the sheer challenge of devising and implementing a workable arrangement for C to see her mother. Following the finding of fact hearing, there has been the following time spent between C and Mother:

(a) Cessation of contact for one month;

(b) Twice weekly indirect video contact between the mother and C, initially supervised by paternal grandmother and subsequently recorded. The frequency of this was later reduced to twice per week on the weeks that the mother does not have direct contact with C and once per week in the intervening week.

(c) Contact between mother and C at CAFCASS offices supervised by the former CG on 5^th and 12^th April 2024;

(d) Supervised contact sessions at Yorkshire Children's Centre on 15^th and 29^th July 2023, and 23^rd August 2023.

(e) Fortnightly contact supervised by agreed third parties, as approved by the CG, initially for two hours, which then increased to four hours in duration, which remains the current arrangement (subject to temporary variations whilst the father and C travelled to Australia in February-March 2024)

53. Sadly, the enmity between the parties has not abated and C remains caught up in the middle of ongoing conflict played out at home and in the court arena. Notable low points were repeated disputes over misuse of social media to denigrate one another and an occasion when the father reported C's former childminder to the police for harassment because she had sent a gift and a letter to C, seemingly to cheer her up. The mother contended before me last Summer that the father is not promoting her relationship with C. In a statement dated 6^th December 2023 she states that the situation with the father has got worse. She says that the court should recognise that the plan has not worked and that I should reverse the arrangement and return C to her care.
54. I have already observed that it was foreseeable that it would be extremely difficult to implement satisfactory parenting time arrangements for C and her mother. It was also predictable that if arrangements were not implemented to the mother's satisfaction that there would be a turning of the tables with the mother accusing the father of trying to undermine her relationship with C. That is what has happened. This case has now turned into something of a rerun of the 2023 hearing with the court having to consider the same welfare issues and again having to consider allegations against the father and counter allegations against the mother.
55. Since her last involvement in this case in September last year Judge Trotter Jackson has moved to Leeds probably breathing a sigh of relief at leaving this case behind her. The case was temporarily in the careful and experienced hands of the newly elevated HHJ Baddeley but he too has moved on, in his case to the less emotional forum of the civil courts. So it was that the case came before me.

The approach to be taken to HJJ Trotter-Jackson's findings

56. It is highly regrettable that one single judge has not carried on with a case where highly contentious positions have been taken, and facts found which have led to a radical change in the life of the child. The findings made by Judge Trotter Jackson are a matter of record and they have not been formally challenged by an appeal and an interim stay. I cannot conduct a defacto appeal of my colleague's factual findings. However, the mother and her legal team have come very close to trying to challenge the findings by a different route. In the hearing in July the approach taken on the mother's behalf notwithstanding the content of her statements filed shortly before the hearing was not to litigate allegations of the father's controlling behaviour and aggression during the relationship but to focus on his behaviour and C's emotional presentation since the change in her living arrangements. As far as factual matters are concerned, I was therefore required to concentrate on developments since January 2023 and on the evidence filed by the parents since then.
57. When I adjourned the case part-heard in July ,the mother's barrister, Mr Broadbent persuaded me to allow the mother an opportunity to file another schedule of allegations [B628] which she would say was evidence of father's coercive and controlling behaviour, with a view to inviting me to consider whether it was necessary and proportionate to determine the disputed allegations when the hearing was resumed. The schedule comprised no fewer than 17 allegations. I do not set them out here but most date back many years. I heard submissions and considered the position statements filed.
58. I was particularly struck by the content of the Guardian's position statement [B711]. At paragraph 7 [B712] He says that he had considered whether the cumulative effect upon the mother of the reported controlling behaviour by the father may explain her previous behaviour and allegations and whether this could make a material difference to C's current care arrangements. He clearly states that in his opinion it did not explain her historic allegations. In the light of the court's previous findings, he stated that he would be highly unlikely to recommend a transfer of residence back to the mother even if all the findings she seeks are made. Moreover, he considered that he could make no further recommendations beyond what he had told me in July. Nevertheless and rather surprisingly, he went on to say that it was his view that the mother's case at a final hearing "cannot be fairly heard without determining the findings she seeks" He also added that the findings might determine how future "time with" orders are managed and that the issues should be litigated to "ensure there is a fair narrative to frame C's life story and potentially inform any therapeutic input she has".
59. If a children's Guardian of the calibre of Mr Johnson submits that a decision not to try certain facts would be unfair, that submission cannot be taken lightly. Nevertheless, I decided that it would not be unfair to refuse the mother's application and accordingly I did refuse it. I had very much in mind the guidance of the Court of Appeal that the court should only determine those disputed facts which are necessary to inform the analysis of the child's welfare needs. As far as I can recall thinking back to a date over three months ago, I also had in mind the consequential delay and financial expense to be incurred in carrying out a detailed examination of the history of a dysfunctional relationship and its demise with the additional complication of the father conducting his own case. Overall the most significant factors for me were, first the fact that most of the allegations predated the mother having facilitated C spending unsupervised time with the father, secondly that there was evidence before the court that time spent with the father had usually been a positive experience, thirdly that the mother had the opportunity to raise the allegations before HHJ Trotter Jackson but had not done so and had not sought to raise them with me in July and lastly that the Guardian's few that any findings would not cause him to change his welfare analysis in any event. I decided that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to hear evidence on the allegations.
60. In his closing submissions to me Mr Broadbent informed me that the mother had invited Judge Trotter Jackson to determine allegations of what she considered to be coercive and controlling behaviour in January 2023 and that having been refused she was renewing the issue before me. Mr Broadbent also reminded me of the clear guidance from the Family Justice Council endorsed by the President of the Family Division as to the careful approach to be taken to allegations of alienating behaviour by a parent when that parent has alleged that there has been domestic abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour. He emphasised the need to look at allegations of parental alienation in the broader factual context and to do so it would usually be necessary to decide whether abusive behaviour has occurred.
61. The FJC guidance was published in December 2024 and my decision was made in the previous October. Mr Broadbent did not invite me to revisit my decision in the light of the new guidance, but he invited me to consider how much weight I could place on the findings that Judge Trotter Jackson made two years ago. As far as her approach to the issues was concerned he also reminded me that in as far as she had been clearly influenced by Dr Downs' opinions about parental alienation I should keep in mind that on 21^st February 2023 the President handed down his judgment in Re C ( Parental Alienation, Instruction of Expert ) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) in which he stated that like an allegation of domestic abuse, the decision about whether or not a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the judge and it is not a diagnosis that can or should be offered by a psychologist. He said that the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome is unhelpful and what is important is the behaviour that is found to have taken place within the family and the impact that may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both parents.
62. I would make this observation as to Mr Broadbent's submission. He was not criticising the judge for not adopting the same approach as The President in Re C, nor could he because the Re C decision was handed down nearly a month after Judge Trotter – Jackson's. In any event the expert had been instructed with the permission of a District Judge long before the case came into Judge Trotter Jacksons hands. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to me that the court was abrogating its decision to a Psychologist. Dr Downs who is a properly qualified a registered Consultant Psychologist, albeit one with a particular interest in alienating behaviour, and was instructed in the context of a complex and difficult case with a view to helping the court to understand the psychological profiles and behaviour of the parents and the child. She was not asked to diagnose "parental alienation" by examining the mother alone. Judge Trotter Jackson reached her conclusion that the mother had resorted to alienating behaviour based on her careful analysis of all the facts. Dr Downs' opinions informed the judge's assessment of how likely the mother would be to promote a positive image of the father in the future and what the consequences for the child might be of the options the judge had as to where C lived and what contact arrangements should be. The finding of alienating behaviour was based on facts, not on a "diagnosis" by a psychologist.
63. I repeat that I am not sitting in review of Judge Trotter Jackson's decision. However, I think I can say that on the information that she had before her in January 2023 I cannot find any fault in her approach. Indeed, when she gave her oral evidence before me in the resumed hearing the mother herself said that she could see how the judge had reached her conclusions and that if she had been in the same position as the judge, she would have reached the same conclusions. I should say at this point that the mother's concession appears to be a significant change of position by her.
64. I do suspect that if Judge Trotter Jackson had been possessed of all the information that I now have, she might have found her decision even more difficult to make than it was case. It is a pointless exercise to speculate what she might have done in January 2023 if she had been able to look into a crystal ball to reveal what lay ahead, but in so far as the court's task now is to consider a wholesale reversal of the arrangement that Judge Trotter Jackson previously saw fit to impose I remain firmly of the view that she would have been the ideal candidate to carry out that task.
65. I confess that sometimes judges wish that a difficult case could just disappear from our desks. However, it is in precisely those cases, sometimes described as problematical contact disputes, where implacable hostility to contact, alienation or coercion are factors, that it is desirable if not imperative for one judge to reserve the case to himself/herself even if it involves transferring the case to a different court centre or even a different circuit so it can follow the judge. I do wonder whether such a view might be reinforced by the President at some time in the future.
66. I shall now turn to the evidence I heard both in July and more recently.

The Evidence in July

Dr Downs

Further Psychological report from Dr Downs

67. There has been another report by Dr Downs. It is dated 15^th February 2024 and it appears within the Court bundle at [REF C141-161] The conclusion of the report is that C continues to be harmed because of the dysfunctional relationship between the parents. The expert considers that, notwithstanding a change in her residence, C continues to use the psychological defence of splitting and compartmentalisation. The report indicates that to increase time that C spends with Mother would almost certainly exacerbate the difficulties in terms of C's use of psychological defences and have a negative impact upon her mental health. Dr. Downs advises that the family may benefit from therapeutic input and that the Court may wish to consider a suspension of contact between C and her Mother, which may be reinstated as part of the therapy.

Further addendum psychological report

68. Following receipt of additional questions from the parties, Dr. Downs requested to see C to prepare a further report. This is dated 24^th June 2024 and is contained within the bundle at [C162-222]. In preparation for this addendum, Dr Downs met each of the parents, the father's wife and C. She also made further enquiries of C's school. Dr Downs conclusion is that C continues to show evidence of using psychological defences such as splitting and compartmentalisation whereby she shows evidence of aligning herself with her mother and devaluing her father, albeit this is not consistent with her non-verbal communication and the lack of emotional congruence when speaking negatively about the father and stepmother. The results are suggestive of C continuing to be negatively influenced, whether overtly or otherwise. Dr. Downs expresses significant concerns as to the longer-term impact of this in terms of C's emotional and psychological development and increased risk of mental health/psychiatric problems in the longer term. Dr. Downs states it is clear that the mother has not changed her stance in respect of the father and C is likely to continue to use psychological defences whilst subject to the influence of the Mother, and maternal family unless the mother changed her stance. As per the earlier report therapeutic input is proposed, although the expert questions the mother's ability and willingness to engage in this. Dr. Downs states that a return to the mother's care would exacerbate the difficulties in terms of C feeling unable to articulate a range of feelings towards both parents. There is little evidence of the mother having accepted the conclusions of earlier reports in terms of the harm that C is being caused in the current situation. The mother's view was that C having been exposed to domestic abuse was the likely cause of Es negativity towards the father and she brought old recordings of the father and her arguing to reinforce that proposition. Dr. Downs states there is still considerable acrimony between the parents. She commended the benefit of a gap in family time between C and the mother and stated ideally that during this time therapeutic input be provided to assist C. Dr. Downs states C is likely to protest about the gap in family time, and will almost certainly worry about her mother or consider she has done something wrong, or worry about mothers reaction. However, to reduce the harm to C, it is important to ensure she has a clear narrative in terms of the things she has been told in the past that are not true. Dr. Downs states it will be important not to reinstate contact until C is settled and showing fewer signs of splitting and an ability to hold ambivalent feelings in respect of both parents, as well as the wider families. When contact is reinstated, Dr. Downs considers it should be professionally supervised until the mother is able to demonstrate an ability to promote C's relationship with her father but recognises this may be very difficult for the mother to do, given the rigidity of her stance to the father. However, unless she can do so she will continue to compromise the emotional and psychological development of her daughter placing her at increased risk of mental health problems or personality disorders in the longer term. The timescale of this Dr. Downs feels would have to be determined by the providers of the therapy.

Dr Downs' oral evidence.

69. Dr Downs said she had detected no change in the mother's stance and she said she observed the mother to be more vocal about her negativity and there was no sign of any insight into the courts concerns. She noted a complete inability to say anything positive about the father or his family.
70. In terms of the impact on C of the mother's attitude she said that C is in a "double bind". She is struggling to manage her emotions and she tries to manage her situation by changing her accounts or her demeanour depending on who she is talking to because she knows that whatever she says will get back to each parent. In the circumstances she is constantly weighing up how she needs to present. She can't simply relax and be herself.
71. Dr Downs said that although the symptoms might not manifest themselves till later in life or even when C attains adulthood the current situation is harming her emotional and psychological development and what is going on now is likely to affect her ability to form and maintain healthy relationships in the future.
72. I regret to say that I was not particularly helped by hearing Dr Downs' oral evidence as to any possible solution to the current predicament. It was very clear to me that she too finds this case extremely challenging. I am therefore not surprised that she found it difficult to suggest a way forward with any degree of clarity. She was quite adamant that some sort of family therapy was required to enable the child and the parents to change their thinking. C ideally needs time and space to allow her to be able to identify, understand and express her true feelings and for her to reach a position where she can reach her own conclusions about each parent and the role they play in her life. She said she couldn't see how things could change for the better unless and until she was enabled to think independently of her mother.
73. She said that the prognosis would be poor if C's thinking in that sense continued to be influenced by the mother whether by verbal or non verbal communication that projected negativity about the father. She envisaged that therapy would only have good prospects of success if both parents also engaged in it. However, she was not confident that the mother would engage in therapy and she also thought that C herself would find it difficult at least in the short term. She recommended that C's family time with the mother should be suspended to allow therapy to be undertaken. Whilst she appeared reluctant to expressly recommend an indefinite cessation of family time, that was the clear implication of her evidence as I understood it. She said that the therapy should go on for as long as necessary until someone, either the therapy provider or Dr Downs herself could recommend that C was ready to have contact reintroduced. Dr. Downs also said that contact should be professionally supervised but she was not able to say who could do that.
74. Dr Downs was cross examined by Mr Broadbent for the mother at some length in July. He suggested to her that there were other things that could have contributed to C's resistance to wanting to see her father such as her recollections of her father's abusive behaviour and or the high conflict circumstances of the separation. She accepted that it was common for children to align with one parent or the other and she recognised this as a high conflict separation. She said that C did not show signs of having been significantly affected by witnessing abuse.
75. She accepted that a child might prefer one parent and reject the other on the basis of differences in parenting styles but that she had not observed any issues in the father's home. Of course one might not expect an overly strict parent to show his true colours when being assessed and Dr Downs had only a limited amount of time to form a view on her planned visit.
76. She also accepted that a child might be resistant to spending time with a step parent and she accepted that C had said that at times she felt left out. However she appeared to attach significance to the fact that she heard C laughing and talking but she went quiet and looked worried when she saw Dr Downs. I have to say I am less convinced of the significance of this and it could simply have been the case that the child was wary of talking about her life with a professional yet again.
77. Mr Broadbent quite properly challenged Dr Downs on the absence of any evidence that she had considered the effect on C if her wishes and feelings were ignored and she had not analysed C's ability to adjust to not seeing her mother if contact was suspended. Her response was to say that we don't have a crystal ball. In her opinion if contact was suspended as she was suggesting this would take the pressure off her to be what the mother wants her to be.
78. I found insufficient analysis of the impact of ignoring C's wishes and feelings but it seems to me that Dr Downs was not prepared to move from the theory that the child was so much influenced by her mother that her expressed wishes and feelings were not genuine and were incongruent with her observed interactions with the father.

The Parents Evidence in July

The father

79. The father had filed a Statement dated 12^th May 2023 [B392-404] setting out the contact that had taken place and providing an update of C's response to contact and setting out future proposals in respect of contact and potential supervisors.
80. His statement dated 14^th March 2023 [B513] sets out the progression of contact and gives a another update as to C's presentation and response to contact. The statement also responds to the addendum psychological report of Dr. Downs, and confirms that he will take note of advice from professionals as to future child arrangements.
81. The fathers Statement dated 10^th July 2024 [B1517] includes a further update in respect of C and her presentation. The father's position is that C should continue to live with him. In response to an addendum report from Dr. Downs, the father expressed his concern at new evidence/concerns raised by the mother when meeting with Dr. Downs and he felt that this is a reinforcement of her stance in respect of him. The father also sets out that he does not consider that the mother was able to work together with him for C's sake and that there is no evidence of conciliation or self-reflection, no ownership of her actions or the acceptance of any responsibility and considers it unlikely the mother will ever change her stance. The father sets out that he is very open to exploring therapeutic input for C and the family although he sets out some reservations as to the mother's engagement and how this could be enforced. The father highlights that the ongoing proceedings are having a negative effect upon C and asks the Court to finalise them.

The father's oral evidence

82. At the start of his evidence he made clear that he was not in support of the Guardian's proposal and his preference was for contact to be essentially suspended for an indeterminate period until therapy could achieve a successful outcome. Thereafter he said that it should only occur 4 times a year.
83. His attempts to explain his reasoning for such a limitation were unconvincing. He said that there would have to be a lengthy recovery period between the sessions to allow C to recover from the likely trauma she would experience by seeing her mother. That analysis was difficult to reconcile with the idea that contact would only start if C was ready for it and presumably if it had been determined that resumed contact would not be harmful. It was as if the father was working on the assumption that even after successful therapy C was still likely to be harmed by contact.
84. In that regard I was troubled by the father's thinking. The fact of the matter is that C is not obviously traumatised by contact with her mother. On the contrary, she very much wants it to happen, she enjoys it and if it could be done how she ideally wants it to be done I have no doubt that she would be much happier. The proposed reduction in contact is aimed at reducing the scope for the mother to consciously or unconsciously undermine or taint C's relationship with her father. The argument is not that contact itself is harmful but what it might give rise to.
85. The father frequently referred to trauma but I did not find his use of the word particularly helpful. The harm that C has suffered in my judgment is a consequence of her circumstances. Dr Downs'opinion is that C has experienced developmental harm by previously not being allowed to maintain a healthy relationship with the father. There has never been any incident of trauma in the ordinary meaning of the word.
86. In reply to Mr Broadbent's questions, the father agreed that following the hearing before HHJ Trotter Jackson there was a break in contact but he had wanted a longer break than the court ordered.
87. He protested strongly when it was suggested he had not really promoted contact. He said that he had in fact wanted a shared care arrangement and that he had done his bit to arrange a contact centre and that delays were caused by the mother.
88. Mr Broadbent confronted the father with evidence that he had been inconsistent to say the least in his facilitation of the mother's indirect contact. The arrangement was that the mother should have been sent the Teams link by 5.00pm the day before to allow the mother to log in to the virtual meeting room.
89. The Parenting App messages show that the mother frequently has had to chase the father because he had not sent her the link. I found his answers insensitive and they demonstrated a lack of empathy. He was at pains to point out that C and the family had a life apart from contact and it was an administrative burden on him having to facilitate and set up C's contact with her mother. At one point he said that life gets in the way sometimes.
90. Having secured what he wanted, namely for C to be living with him, it is part of the father's parental responsibility to make C available to see her mother. I was far from convinced that the father saw things that way and I don't feel that C's contact with her mother was always sufficiently prioritised.
91. He was asked about C's accusation that she had been disciplined for not referring to H as mummy. He denied it but was far from convincing when asked about whether he was aware that there were issues with C pushing back if the stepmother asked her to do things or tried to lay down boundaries. I have to say he was waffling, and it seemed that he was reluctant to commit himself and he found it difficult to answer. It was notable that in the resumed hearing in February the father twice used the word "Mummy" when recounting conversations with C in which had he had been talking about the stepmother. He explained these as slips of the tongue.
92. Ms Broughton on behalf of the child asked the father whether he accepted any responsibility for the situation C was in and he accepted that he had been negative about the mother at times, he had lost his cool and he had not always made the best attempts to communicate with the mother.
93. Ms Broughton explored with the father his insistence that the child's contact with the mother was traumatising before and afterwards and he was taken to the section in Dr Downs' report where she sets out their discussions [C183-C189]. It was pointed out to the father that this apparently important matter was not mentioned and there was no reference to a pattern of distressed behaviour around contact. He gave another waffling and incoherent explanation for why he had had not mentioned it and at one point he appeared to say that it was not so important that he felt the need to raise it and he said he was not trying to attribute C's behaviour to the mother but it was clear to me that was precisely what he was trying to do.
94. He was asked about his views on trauma therapy and he said he needed therapy because of the trauma that the proceedings had caused him. He did not feel that he needed any help with any aspect of his parenting.

The father's evidence in February 2025

95. The father had filed two further statements, the first was a brief position statement for the case management hearing in October which gave a short update on C's progress and set out his opposition to the mother's request for her allegations of coercive control to be determined [B716]. The second and final statement [B720] In this statement the father says that around the time she has contact with her mother she shows signs of distress; both before and after. He gives no examples. Under the heading "Potential coercion by Mum" the father states that C has " at times displayed distressed behaviour that is often very self destructive, attempting to sabotage family day trips out, refusing food and failing in basic self-care routines expected of an 11 year old". He refers to there being several examples over "the last few weeks" leading to C "opening up" . He says that these include C saying,

Mum has told me to misbehave so that I get sent back to her.

Mum treats me like a dog or a horse

Mum tells me to tell lies

Mum tells me to say one thing, then tells everyone else she didn't and blames me when I say it, and no one believes me

Mummy told me to throw juice over [stepmother] at your Wedding but I didn't.

Again the father gives no context and no timeframe.

96. The balance of the statement deals with the father's discontent at being required to do all the transportation, the reasons why he had refused to provide evidence about his own mental health and the financial impact on him of the proceedings. He returns to a previous complaint that the court has prolonged the litigation and has been led by the mother. He insists that he is "committed to facilitating as much contact as possible" but says that "it is well beyond my ability to suggest what any suitable contact arrangements should be at this point".

The father's oral evidence

97. Given the lack of detail in his statement and because he was a litigant in person I attempted to tease out some detail and I asked about what he had reported that C had said. There was again a frustrating lack of detail and at times I really struggled to detect a coherent narrative account. He said that C had said different things on different occasions and not in the context of one single incident or situation. He says every now and again C has become upset and we get an emotional reaction and shouting and screaming. He says emotional situations have brought out the statements from C. I asked him what he thought the trigger was and his reply was that it was C feeling a bit upset about "the situation". However, he did not say what "the situation" was. He said some of the statements were made to him and some to his wife.
98. He told me that C had been off her food at times but her body was changing and she appeared slimmer. He mentioned a recent occasion around the time of the most recent direct contact when she vomited immediately after her dinner. He thought it was because of nerves and stress about seeing her mother that brought this on.
99. Inevitably, Mr Broadbent tried to explore these matters in more detail but again he struggled to pin the father down and again the father's replies were incoherent and difficult to follow. Mr Broadbent showed the father the email message he sent to the social worker Beth in which he said that C usually came out with them after she had been "reprimanded". He was asked to explain what this meant and Mr Broadbent suggested to the father that it might be when C is being shouted at; when she thinks that she is in trouble. The father said its usually when she has told a direct lie but his mind "didn't work in specifics". It seemed to me that the father was struggling to remember particular incidents. He did suggest that one of the incidents may have been when she had not filled up the water for the chickens and she had been told off because this is the only regular chore she is expected to do.

The laundry incident

100. Mr Broadbent asked the father to give an example of when C had become emotional when he had reprimanded his daughter and he described an occasion when the stepmother found a pair of C's pants with a faeces stained gusset, probably her said when "she failed to wipe herself properly". He said that his wife had raised this with C, that C had lied and that she was told that she was going to get her pocket money docked. The father was quite matter of fact in what he said; the pants were soiled, she clearly had soiled them, but she lied repeatedly and "then it resulted in tears". He said that the exchange with the stepmother about the pants was about twenty minutes, C was getting upset and he then took her to one side and spoke to her, told her she was getting her pocket money docked and then he asked he why she was so upset. He recalls that it was then that she referred to her mother telling her to tell lies or misbehave as if she were justifying her distress. It was suggested that it was inappropriate to punish her for soiling her pants but the father said it was persistent lying that required the punishment of docking her pocket money. He also said that the incident had caused them to change plans and shorten a day out because the incident had taken so long to resolve. This was an example of a family trip being "sabotaged".
101. The father accepted that he had told C that he was going to speak to the social worker about the things C had told him and she had known that Beth was going to speak to her about them and it was important. He denied that he had put pressure on C but he had told her "if you want to help mummy you need to be honest". It is clear from the tone of his emails to the social workers that the father regarded this as a welfare issue and he believed it was evidence of ongoing coaching by the mother. I am quite sure that he did not want C "to help mummy". Her disclosures, if true would be anything but helpful to the mother's case and the father would have known that very well. I am sure the father impressed on C the need to repeat accurately to the social worker exactly what she had been saying to him.
102. When he was asked more questions about this by Ms Broughton. He said that the finding of the soiled pants "caused a challenge, it was sort of 'whats going on here? ' He said it was quite a significant incident and he felt justified in handling it the way he did, and it was a "balanced and measured approach". Ms Broughton pressed him on what other things has C been reprimanded for and he said sometimes it's about food, sometimes when she has not completed a task, not cleaning her glasses or brushing her hair or putting dirty clothes on, lying about not brushing her teeth when he knows that she hasn't because the toothbrush hasn't moved in the bathroom. I asked him about lying about food and he said there had been occasions when she hadn't eaten her packed school lunched and had lied saying that she had eaten it.
103. The Guardian explored the possibility of the father funding professional supervision of C's time with her mother. It was clear that he felt that the mother should be paying something towards it and then he said "I'm sceptical because I don't see value for money here". He was pressed on whether he accepted the Guardian's recommendation, and he said referring to C having direct contact with the mother, "We need to discuss whether this is in C's interests." He said " I'm not sure that paying for supervised contact is any better". I took from that that he felt that supervision would not be an effective safeguard against the mother influencing C and that it might be better of there was no contact.
104. The father said that he thought that C's negativity towards him was declining and that his relationship with C had greatly improved and there is a greater emotional connection. As for the future he said he thought C needed sensitive handling but he felt that he was able to cope with any challenges as she got into her teenage years.

The Mother

The mother's written evidence in July

105. The mothers first statement filed since the transfer of residence is dated 11^th May 2023 [359] it deals with progression of contact following the transfer of residence and her proposals for direct contact.
106. Her statement dated 14^th March 2024 [B479] makes it clear out that her position is that C should return to live with her, which is in accordance with C's expressed wishes and feelings. The statement sets out an update as to contact and her concerns with regard to the father and C in his care.
107. The mother's lengthy statement dated 22^nd July 2024 [B524] sets out her response to Dr. Downs' report, which she considers to be poorly written, factually inaccurate and lacking a scientific basis. She accuses Dr. Downs of not having read the relevant material at the time of her meeting with the mother. She goes on to state that she considers she feels that she and C have both been "gaslighted" by Dr. Downs. She also states that she believes Dr Downs has acted improperly and outside of her remit by alleging parental alienation and that Dr. Downs does not appear to be up to date with the latest research and guidelines surrounding what she calls pseudoscience such as parental alienation and splitting in family Court proceedings and instead uses outdated publications. The mother states that Dr. Downs recommendation conflicts with the latest guidelines, research and case law in this area and cites various guidance in support of this position. She also says that Dr. Downs is entrenched in her stance. The statement confirms the mother's position that C's wishes and feelings should be respected and she should return to live with her. She sets out a number of concerns in respect of C remaining in the father's care. The mother also states that within these proceedings, there is in her view, a strong undercurrent of coercive control and attempts to recreate reality and gaslight on the father's part. She states that the father appears to prioritise control of the mother and the child . She also suggests that the father has attempted to falsely diagnose C with a medical condition that she does not have. The mother raises caring concerns as to C's clothing and shoes being too big and in respect of C's personal hygiene, stating that when C visits for contact, she appears unkempt and with dirty hair and skin.

The mother's oral evidence in July

108. There were moments when the mother showed some developing insight into C's situation and her own role in it. She was asked whether she identify anything deficient in her parenting and she said, referring to C " On reflection I listened to her too much. Maybe I've just taken her word." She was asked what her response was to Dr Downs describing her parenting as harmful and she said "If I've listened and acted on it, then maybe it is harmful parenting." She said "'I've gone out of my way for C but maybe I gave her too much of a voice". She maintained that she did not fabricate the accounts but acted on what C told her at the time and she didn't know they were false allegations at that time.
109. She was asked if she could now identify any positive aspects of the father. She said "He wants to be there for C, he didn't walk out on her" also he had been able to move on and have a settled home and family life. She also commended him for trying to promote C's hobbies. She was however less able to find positives about his parenting style.
110. The father's barrister suggested that the mother was keen to show that C is unhappy because of the father's parenting but she said that C is unhappy because of her circumstances and because her life is disrupted.

The mother's evidence in February.

111. In accordance with my directions the mother had filed an updating statement dated 16 January 2025 [B724]. In that statement she makes the point that C is not thriving, is unhappy, remains unsettled and wishes to return home. She says that during the two years since C moved to her father she has expressed at every possible opportunity that she wants to live with her mother. She describes the removal of C from her care as being a Draconian step and that Dr Downs' view that the transfer would be a case of long-term gain over short-term pain has not been borne out in practice. The mother is robust in her criticism of Dr Downs saying that her views were pseudoscientific nonsense and that she had refused to acknowledge that domestic abuse from the father was in any way relevant to a fair consideration of the mother's attitude to the father and her behaviour.
112. The statement which runs to 12 pages is highly critical of the father in many respects. She comments on C looking thin, having poor personal hygiene, and being badly turned out with ill-fitting and shabby clothes. The clear implication from the mother is that C is being neglected. She is also critical of the father's motives and states that he is using C to continue to exercise control over her. She continues to question his mental health and she suspects that his refusal to disclose any evidence from his GP indicates that he is hiding something from the court.
113. The statement goes on to set out the various ongoing difficulties with the smooth facilitation of video contact, which she asserts is further evidence of controlling behaviour.
114. As to C having told her father that her mother had told her to lie and misbehave she denied that she ever had said that. In paragraph 28 [B732] she states that when C visited on 21^st December she asked her why she had told lies about her and she says that C physically broke down sobbing, barely able to speak and said that she had to say those things because Dad said if she didn't tell the social worker then he would make sure she never saw her mum again. The mother states that C said that her father told her that that the social workers tell him everything that she says to them so he would know what she had said and so she had to lie.
115. The mother exhibits to her statement a long email [B793] which she sent to her solicitor 2 days after having spoken to C. In that email she recounts that C had told the Social Worker Hannelore Talbot that her father was telling her to lie about her mother.

The mother's oral evidence in February

116. The mother was asked again whether she accepted the findings of Judge Trotter Jackson that her behaviour had alienated C from her father. She said that she accepted the findings and she acknowledged that her behaviour had been responsible for Judge Trotter Jackson reaching the conclusions that she had and that she herself would have reached the same conclusions. However, she said that it was not her specific intention to alienate C from her father and that she had not coached C in any way nor had she fabricated any allegations. In answer to the Guardian's questions she said that she had not intentionally made things up but that she had handled things in the wrong way and that she had misconstrued what C was telling her. She was asked whether her approach would be any different now and she said that if C made a new allegation about her father she would have to be quite firm and her first port of call would be to raise this with the father before simply accepting what C was alleging at face value.
117. She was asked about the allegations that C had made that her mother had encouraged her to lie about the father and to misbehave so that she could come back to live with her. She denied that she ever said such things. She was questioned about the way she had dealt with this with C when she became aware of what he had said. She accepted that she had asked C straight out soon after she arrive why she had told lies about her mommy. She said that C had replied that she had to say those things because daddy had told that if she did not that she would not be able to see mummy again. She did not demonstrate any appreciation of the fact that questioning the child in this way was drawing her into the conflict between the mother and father and could have had the effect of making C extremely emotionally distressed given the fact that she has torn loyalties between the parents.
118. The mother told me that it was her proposal that C should return to her care and that she had made some tentative enquiries as to the availability of schools. She accepted that she would have to go through the appropriate admissions processes. As to ongoing family time with the father she assured me that she would not stand in the way of this that there should be a return to the old regime of the father seeing the child every other weekend and sharing the school holidays. The arrangement could revert to the father collecting C from school and either returning to school or to the maternal grandparents.

EVIDENCE FROM NORTH YORKSHIRE CHILDRENS SERVICES (NYCS)

119. NYCS has produced a Section 37 report dated [C237] and an addendum report dated 30^th December 2024 [C255]. I heard oral evidence from social workers Beth Robertson and Hannah Talbot, who co worked the case and both had input into the reports although Ms Robertson had signed of the report.

Section 37 report

120. I find the following matters to be particularly noteworthy. When discussing C's interests with the social worker the father mentioned, Young Farmers, playing on her Xbox and playing cricket. He did not mention her love of equestrian matters. However, he said that when C has video calls with her mother C "stages" them and "set dresses" her bedroom using the Crafty Ponies soft toys that her mother has bought for her. He told the social worker that C does not show the same level of interest in ponies and horses when spending time with him but that when spending time with her Mum C would say that she loves horses and wants to live with her. When the social worker saw C at her father's home she would not speak to the social workers. In an informal setting in the community without family members present she engaged well. She was happy to share information about her interests. She spoke about her love of ponies and that she had three at her mother's home. She shared her love of dressage and showjumping and of the Royal Dublin Horseshow and how she wanted to be an equine vet when she is older.
121. She spoke positively about her father but overall she said that she wanted to live with her mother. She said that she and her mother have more in common and that her mother is more interesting than her father. She also said that her father works a lot and so they don't get much time to spend together. She spoke about the struggles she has faced because the court process has been so long. She said she does not discuss anything with her friends and although she prefers not to discuss matters with professionals at school she wished that she had an independent person outside of school who she could talk to. When the conversation concluded she emphasised again that she wished to live with her mother.
122. I was particularly struck by the fact that the father described the mother as using a narrative about power and control to impact professional's views and that it was his view that the mother's focus is not on C but on control and that she seeks "access to opportunities to abuse". This is the mirror image of the view that the mother appears to hold about the father namely that he doesn't want C but just wants to use her to exercise control. I don't accept the father's view of the mother's motives but the fact that he and the mother each accuse the other of using the child to exert control over the other illustrates the size of the gulf between these warring parents.

Addendum report

123. This report followed a community based meeting with C and social workers on 21^st November 2024 and a meeting at school on the 10^th December. C is reported to have been excited about Christmas plans and was looking forward to seeing her mother at the weekend. She repeated her wish to return to live with her mother although she did state that if that was the case she would miss her baby sister. Furthermore, she stated that if she returned to her mother's care she would still want to make sure that she could still visit her father and her sister. She went on to say that if she continues to live with her father she would like to spend more time with her mother saying that four hours was not long enough as half of the time is spent driving in the car. She shared that she wanted to be able to spend more time with her mum so that they could attend things that she enjoys such as horse shows.
124. C's feelings about confiding in others appear to have changed by 21^st November because she spoke of having gone for a walk at school with a teacher and she was able to discuss how she was feeling. C told the social worker that she appreciated that and she wanted it to become a regular thing.

C's disclosures about the mother "coaching" her.

125. The report states that the father told social workers that he had asked his daughter when the mother was telling her to lie or misbehave and that she had said that it was during contact visits but that she was unable to give specific dates. Social worker Hannelore Talbot spoke to C on 10th December 2024. C spoke again about people with whom she could share her worries, on this occasion she said that if she ever has any worries she will speak to her friends about them rather than her parents. She became upset when the social worker asked why she could not share her worries with her parents, and she confided that she was worried that she would get into trouble. Ms Talbot explained to C that her father had shared some comments that C had made and that she needed to understand if what the father had shared was accurate. apparently asked for the comments to be read out to her so she could say whether they were accurate or not.
126. C agreed that her mother had told her to misbehave so that she could be sent back to her. She also agreed that mum had told her to tell lies and that her mother had told her to throw juice over her stepmother at the wedding. As to the comment "mom treats me like a dog or a horse" she is described as unsure about that. She is also described as being unsure about the comment "mum tells me to say one thing, then tells everyone else she didn't, and blames me when I say, and no one believes me".

Ms Talbot's oral evidence

127. Ms Talbot told me that C has said that she had been expecting to talk about these matters and Ms Talbot got the distinct impression that she knew what the allegations were. She didn't explore with C the circumstances in which she made allegations. When confirming statements that were true she would say yes and nodded. The impression that Ms Talbot got was that C wanted to share information but at the same time she did not want to get into trouble. At the end she was a little unsure about what would happen next but she did not object to Ms Talbot sharing her answers with the father. Ms Talbot said that she has found C to be somewhat guarded and reserved and that she does not welcome visits and conversations. She always made clear to C that conversations were on her terms and she took care never to pressurise C.
128. In reply to Mr Broadbent's questions Ms Talbot said that she was satisfied that equestrian matters were a genuine passion for C and she knew that it was an interest that she shared in common with the mother. She was asked whether she got the impression from C that her interest in horses was discouraged and she said not. She said that C had said nothing about her interests being disparaged or encouraged. As regards C's desire to live with the mother, she said she felt this was genuine and that there was no obvious evidence that she had been coached to say that.
129. I found Ms Talbot's evidence to be measured fair and entirely accurate.

CAFCASS Final Analysis for the hearing before me in July

130. This was undertaken by the current CG Daniel Johnson and the report dated 25^th July 2024 is at [C223-236]. The report sets out that when speaking with C she has seemed dejected. In previous meetings, C was seen to have parroted allegations not found by the Court, and based on this she has spoken about her fears and dislike of the father and his wife. However, the CG notes that in his most recent visit C did not share any specific negativities about the father or his wife, focusing instead on expressing simply that she wishes to return to the mother's care. However, when exploring the reasons for this further, the CG notes that C was again parroting the mother. The CG was satisfied that C's overall needs were being met in her father's care, and he is satisfied that the concerns raised by the mother are largely without substance. Whilst the mother expresses in her statement concerns about C's attendance at school, this would inevitably have been impacted by the Australia trip and the CG is concerned that the mother characterises this as an ongoing lack of prioritisation by the father of C's education. The CG also refers to a photograph shown to him by the mother attempting to support her claim that C is unkempt but he considered that taking the photograph was inappropriate and reinforces negative messages to C about the care she is receiving. Having seen the communications between the parents, the CG is of the view that it shows little other than both parents trying to score points against one another for perceived mistakes, and an ongoing battle to have control. The CG states that both parents continue to try to paint one another as bad and abusive rather than accepting that they were in a toxic relationship with poor communication and that they now need to move on. The CG heard two of the recordings of the father that were played to Dr. Downs and states that they do not seem to point to the abuse that the mother says they do, and that the relevance of them in proceedings was significantly limited. The CG highlighted that there is no suggestion from C of abusive behaviour between the father and his wife and the persistent raising of historic issues by the mother demonstrates her inability to move past previous difficulties. The CG agrees with the psychological assessment by Dr Downs that C is not being permitted to form her own independent view of the father and the mother's behaviour is having a damaging effect on the mother's mental wellbeing as identified by Dr. Downs. The CG agrees with judge Trotter-Jackson's finding that the mother lacks any insight of substance into the effect of her behaviour upon C, and her fixed position causes the CG significant concern. Whilst the CG expresses being deeply troubled by the psychological report in terms of C's emotional health and wellbeing, he states that he found very difficult the decision of whether C's contact with the mother should be suspended and having considered the welfare checklist in respect of this, he stated that he would wish to hear Dr. Downs evidence prior to making final recommendations. The Guardian did confirm that he did not support the return of C to the mother's care as he believes that she would fail entirely to promote any relationship between C and her father.

Guardian's position statement

131. With my approval, the filing of the Guardian's position statement was deferred until he had heard the oral evidence of Dr Downs on the first day of the hearing. I received it by email at 17.41 the same day.
132. Mr Johnson was firmly of the view in July that C should not return to the mother, however he was not supportive of a break in contact. His observations were that despite her expressed wishes and feelings, C had recently appeared much more settled and happy in the care of her father and his wife. Around December 2023 the outgoing headteacher raised concerns about the father and his wife appearing cold and authoritarian and the guardian was concerned that C appeared to be less settled than he would have anticipated. However, school staff considered C to be a lot happier, particularly since her trip to Australia and she had been less specific with the guardian about the issues she raises against her father and his wife. The guardian considered that the mother hadn't even begun to reflect upon the findings of the court from January 2023 and had continued to repeat and make fresh allegations against the father (including referrals to the police) after the finding of fact hearing. He remained of the view that returning C to the care of her mother would result in her losing the relationship that she currently has with her father, stepmother and sister.
133. Whilst the guardian accepted Dr Downs' evidence about the potential for C to continue to be harmed by ongoing contact with her mother, on balance he was of the view that the harm of terminating her contact completely was more significant. He also felt that C has an overwhelming need for a period of consistency and stability and the recommendations of Dr Downs as to the suspension of contact would inevitably lead to a period of further uncertainty.
134. Mr Johnson's opinion was that these proceedings must conclude with a firm and consistent plan for the duration of C's childhood. He was particularly mindful of the evidence of Dr Downs that C knows that whatever she says to professionals will be reported back to the court and in turn, to her mother. He is concerned that C should have an opportunity to build a therapeutic relationship with a professional in which her views are not reported back to her mother or, indeed, her father. He considered that it was vital that she has access to therapy and in his position statement he invited the father to confirm that he will arrange for her to have therapeutic input. He also considered that the father would benefit from therapy to assist him in supporting C to understand her history. The children's guardian is concerned that the father and his wife may be faced with difficult behaviour from C as she moves into her teenage years and that they need to be equipped to deal with it sensitively and appropriately.
135. The Guardian's recommendation was that C continues to have direct contact with her mother but at a reduced level. He has suggested that the contact takes place six times a year during school holidays at the current venue in Sheffield as that involves activities with horses. He would invite the father to ask the current supervisors if they are willing to continue to supervise it and if not, if he would have to pay for an appropriate supervisor. He considered that the father should be responsible for transporting C to contact. He further suggested that C has video contact with her mother on Mother's Day, her birthday and her mother's birthday for a minimum of 20 minutes and a maximum of one hour, to be determined by C.
136. In reaching his conclusions, the children's guardian recognised that C may continue to suffer some degree of emotional harm because of the nature of her relationship with her mother. However, he considered that the reduced level and an activity-based contact with her mother around their shared love of horses minimises that potential. He understood that it was not an ideal solution but did not consider there to be any ideal solution in this matter given the length of proceedings and the negative impact that the proceedings themselves have had on all members of the family but particularly, upon C.
137. The children's guardian also supported the father in seeking an order under Section 91(14) Children Act to prevent the mother from making a further application for a 'live with' or 'spend time with' order without the leave of the court, bearing in mind that this is the third set of proceedings and that these particular proceedings have been ongoing for four years. He considered that such an order should be until C is sixteen to enable her to have a period of consistent and regular contact. If the father is unable or unwilling to pay for an appropriate contact supervisor, the children's guardian would support any application by the mother for leave to pursue an application before the court – this was stated in the hope that this provides an incentive for him to ensure that appropriate supervision is arranged.
138. Mr Johnson also noted that the mother had said that she was concerned that the father intends to move to Australia. There is no evidence that he intends to do so and it is understood that the trip to Australia earlier this year was his first visit to his brother. However, the father did book the holiday to Australia before obtaining the consent of the mother and the court and to alleviate her anxieties, the children's guardian invited the father to agree to a recital that any further holidays to Australia are considered by the court at the earliest opportunity given that the mother is likely to oppose any plans.
139. The Guardian believed his recommendations to be pragmatic and based on the premise that there is no obvious ideal solution regarding C's future that does not involve further delay. He was heavily influenced by the following factors:

a. C has been more settled at school and appeared happier after her trip to Australia when she had less frequent contact with her mother

b. The guardian considers that C's most overwhelming welfare need is for a period of stability and consistency, something she has never really had.

c. The guardian considered that C was being detrimentally affected by the ongoing proceedings

d. C loves her mother but the guardian was not satisfied that she feels able to express her true wishes and feelings or, indeed, that she knows what they are.

140. When he was questioned by the advocates he contributed the following to the oral evidence that he had heard from the parties. As regards the prospect of C responding positively to therapy he was not optimistic given her exposure to a complex and damaging breakdown in her parents' relationship and the fact that she has had contact with many professionals. She feels that professionals do things to her that she doesn't like. The Guardian believed that she would struggle to trust the motives of any professional involved in therapy. As regards the father and his ideas about therapy the Guardian felt that he had no real understanding about therapy and its purpose. He was troubled that when asked what he thought about the proposal the father talked about the fact that he needed therapy to address the trauma that the mother and the court process had put him through as if he was the victim. He was also worried about what sort of therapist might be engaged if it was left to the parents to decide. He says the mother has no insight into the issues and she "Just doesn't get it" and the father also hasn't recognised his role in the breakdown of relations. He was worried about one or other parent involving a therapist who didn't understand or recognise their role. Mr Johnson thought that concluding the litigation and limiting further proceedings would be important in addressing C's emotional state.
141. In reply to Mr Broadbent' s questions the Guardian said he had been pleased to see signs of a change in the mother in that she had been able to acknowledge some positive features about the father, although he doubted that it represented a long term shift in her attitude. He also accepted that it was positive that she had not been sending hostile messages to the father and that she had not made new allegations about the father. On the other hand he was troubled that the day after Judge Baddeley had given permission to take C on the trip to Australia during school time, the mother had complained to the school apparently in an attempt to persuade the headteacher to withdraw consent to C having time out of school and to thwart the fathers plans by a different route. The Guardian also acknowledged that this was not a case of active alienation by the mother by her placing obstacles in the way of contact or by giving palpably false excuses for non compliance. He said it was a case of "generally unhealthy dynamics" and the process of alienation was more subtle.
142. Mr Broadbent asked the Guardian about changes in C's behaviour and whether he thought that after eighteen months she would have formed an independent view about her father. Mr Johnson said that she was no longer "parroting" what her mother had said and that was a positive change. He also observed that latterly C was not talking so negatively about her father and he felt that she felt less strongly opposed to living with him. He was asked about C's reluctance to talk to him and although one explanation for that would be that she did not want to be drawn into the parental conflict he accepted that it could also be because of frustration that she doesn't get what she is asking for when talking to professionals. Mr Johnson said, "she probably questions why she doesn't get what she asks for when I am her voice ".
143. Mr Broadbent questioned the Guardian about the father's apparent attitude to contact and the Guardian agreed that he had "some concerns about his ability to promote contact" and that he doubted that the father would facilitate more contact if C asked for it. He challenged the Guardian on his proposal to drastically reduce contact for a child who wanted precisely the opposite and that she might blame her father to the detriment of their relationship. He accepted that his plan would certainly bring such risks.

The Guardians evidence before me in February 2025.

144. Mr Johnson's updating report for the resumed hearing is at [C256]. In summary, I note the following observations: The feedback from the deputy designated safeguarding lead was that the school has no complaints about C's attainment, attendance or presentation. There were no safeguarding or welfare concerns for C, and she had a positive first term with many positive behaviour points. He noted that although video calls were occurring weekly on Tuesdays and on alternate Thursdays there remained a dispute between the parents over the quality of the calls and the extent to which the father prioritises them. The Guardian remains concerned as to how far C's relationship with her mother is supported in practice.
145. He addresses C's recent reports that her mother had told her to lie and to misbehave and that she had confirmed to the social worker that it was true. His view is that this may be evidence of an ongoing pattern of behaviour by the mother to undermine C's home life with her father.
146. The Guardian expresses regret that the proposals that C have additional time with her mother at Christmas, which the father appeared to agree with at the hearing in October did not progress satisfactorily. The Guardian feels that the father resiled from what he understood to be the plan because of "welfare concerns", namely the comments that C had made about her mother that I referred to above. These were not new concerns but an apparent confirmation by C that the mother had at some time tried to alienate C from her father by encouraging her to lie and to misbehave.
147. In the section of his report dealing with the impact of events in the proceedings on the child, the Guardian states that C continues to be exposed to conflict around decision-making for her. He highlights comments that she has made around the difficulties over transportation at family time and these highlight the fact that she has been exposed to comments by her father. She also spoke in a rather adult manner which led the Guardian to think that her mother had also made comments to her about this issue. He confirmed the mother' concerns about the basic care that her daughter receives at home with her father are almost entirely without basis. The Guardian reviewed a two-year-old video that the mother had provided and it showed a portion of video contact that occurred in April 2023. In the video the child was very tearful and distressed and at one point says that she may have to stay with her father until she is 16. The Guardian discussed the video with the parents. Whereas the mother identified that as an example of emotional harm on the part of the father, the father said that he suspected that it would be something that the mother would have said to the child. The Guardian pointed out to the father that it was unlikely given that the mother had not at that stage yet had direct contact and therefore no opportunity to speak in that way to C. The father then said it might be something that the child picked up from one of the professionals but the Guardian, who had reviewed the notes from the previous Guardian's visit to the child at the time of the transfer of residence felt that this was also unlikely. The Guardian recounts the father having said that he had not always got it right and that language hasn't been right. That led the Guardian to conclude that he may have made the comment about C staying with him until she was 16. I am inclined to agree with that.
148. The Guardian was also right to highlight a comment that had been made by one of the contact supervisor's that C had talked about taking presents from her mother home to her father and her stepmother having said "Oh another bag of crap". The father's response was that his wife would not have used exactly those words but he went on to say that the mother will flood C with presents and he said there is nuance here, the mother will flood her with numerous bits of tat that are not used. He says C may have picked up on that view.
149. The Guardian updated me in the report as to C's wishes and feelings. She was not particularly effusive about life with her father. At one point when the Guardian asked the child about Christmas he noticed a shift in her demeanour and she became more closed off she lay on the sofa at times and buried her head in the cushions. The Guardian asked how things were for C generally and she said "fine things are fine". He asked the child about what was good and going well in her life and she said school where she will get to hang out with friends and seeing mummy but she wanted to see her more. The Guardian asked how she was getting on with her stepmother now and she said "all right". When he asked what was bad or not going well she said "not seeing mummy enough".
150. In paragraph 22 of his report he recounts that C said "I said I didn't want to live with my dad and then just magically I'm at my dads and it's not better for me, it's not much to ask just to live with mum and things to go back, it's not hard". She said that she wanted to see her mother more and she would want a full weekend. She said " I just miss mum, nanny and pops and the horses and my friends…I keep in touch with P and I have her number but its not fair for them to trek up here and I can't see my mum and friends at the same time can I "

151. When the Guardian started to explain to C about the court hearing and reminded her of what the judge would do C appeared to anticipate a question and shouted "I don't know, I don't want to talk about anything else I don't want to speak any more".
152. The Guardian weighs up the pros and cons of the various options available to me [C267-C268]. As for option one returning the child to the mother's care or alternatively increasing the time that she spends with the mother for example to full weekends unsupervised, the Guardian recognises that this would be in line with the child's wishes and feelings, she would feel listened to and have a positive impact on her sense of self. He also recognised the possibility that the mother might feel that there is more equity in the arrangements and that if she and her daughter had quality time she might no longer focus on the father's shortcomings and be disinclined to unduly criticise his general care or make destabilising comments or requests of C.
153. . Mr Johnson thought that that would be an unrealistic prospect and he felt that C would be at significant risk of being emotionally harmed by her mother because she would never be supported to settle with the father.
154. As to the second option of keeping arrangements exactly as they are now, the Guardian readily dismisses that as a viable proposition. He identifies the fact that continued supervision by the family friends could not be guaranteed in the long term and he also drew attention to the frequency of video calls which he believes are reinforcing the toxic and harmful dynamic between the parents.
155. Option three would be to follow the previous recommendations of Dr Downs and suspend family time for an indeterminate period. I remind myself that Dr Downs recommendation envisaged therapy taking place during the period of suspension. That therapy is well and truly off the agenda for the foreseeable future. In any event complete suspension of family time would go entirely against C's wishes and feelings and would no doubt cause her significant distress.
156. The Guardian therefore arrives at option four as the least bad option. He formed the view that the current frequency of contact is disruptive in itself to the child although I have to say that I struggled to understand quite how he reaches that conclusion. He recognises that the reduction in the family time would be contrary to the child's wishes and feelings and would undoubtedly cause her distress but in his view "this is the appropriate balance". He recommends that professional supervision should be involved.
157. The Guardian recommended the making of a child arrangements "live with" order for C to reside in the full-time care of the father and for there to be direct contact every six weeks for four hours supervised professionally in the community and he recommended that video calls take place every fortnight.
158. Finally he recommended that the court make an order pursuant to section 91 (14) of the Children Act 1989 for a duration of three years. This was because C needs a period of stability outside of court proceedings.

The Guardian's oral evidence in February

159. The Guardian found the father's evidence concerning the laundry incident very worrying and it was his view that it disclosed an unnecessarily punitive approach which was insensitive. He has made a referral to children's services as a result of his concern. He also expressed some anxiety about the picture of C's life at home which emerged from the father's evidence about C lying about brushing her teeth. The Guardian was also troubled that the mother was still not being portrayed in a positive light within the father's home and in that regard he was particularly troubled to hear that the stepmother had made the "bag of crap" comment. Nevertheless I am bound to observe that the Guardian did not feel bound to alter his recommendations despite the fact that he remained of the clear view that neither mother or father have the necessary emotional intelligence or insight to meet fully C's emotional needs and that he had concerns about the father's manner and temperament in dealing with C and he wondered about his ability to meet the challenge of parenting a teenage girl in the future. Ultimately, said the Guardian, it is a case of balancing two less than ideal options.
160. The Guardian did not regard C's wishes and feelings as determinative. He was relying very heavily on the evidence of Dr Downs as to C's wishes and feelings and he wondered rhetorically what weight could be placed on what C was saying. He had no doubt that C was not in any way physically unsafe in her father's care and therefore on balance his recommendation was that she should remain with him.
161. In his replies to Mr Broadbent's questions the Guardian said that he did not feel the mother had made sufficient progress to persuade him that it was appropriate for C to return to her care. He accepted that a reduction in the frequency of contact would in itself be emotionally harmful to C but he felt that the current regime was unsustainable.
162. Before I turn to the welfare analysis I must return to the disclosures that C has made about "coaching". I am satisfied that the mother has at sometime incited C to tell lies about her father and to misbehave. This would be entirely consistent with Judge Trotter Jackson's findings in 2023. It would also explain C's allegations to the school that her father and stepmother hit her all the time and the fact that these allegations were inconsistent and dissonant with C's observed interactions with her father.
163. I reject the assertion that the father has himself coached the child to make these allegations up. I also reject the suggestion that the father instructed C to lie to the social workers and explicitly threatened her that if she did not he would ensure that she did not see her mother again. It is possible that this is what C told her mother when she was directly challenged but I am also satisfied that if so this was very likely C's way of placating her mother and coping with her own distress having been so directly challenged. It is also possible that C has misinterpreted what her father told her about giving a true account to the social workers. The father needed C to repeat her allegations to the social workers and to confirm their authenticity so that he could rely on them in support of his own case. I have no doubt whatsoever that he impressed upon C the importance of confirming to Ms Talbot what C had previously said to him. As the father said on oath, he told C it was important that she helped mummy by being honest with the social workers. That was clearly an attempt to control the narrative and to influence his daughter by misleading her. I cannot discount the possibility that the father reinforced his "encouragement " of C by suggesting that if she didn't help mummy she might well see less of her in the future. C has not been slow to criticise the father in the past and when she saw Ms Talbot in December she was still telling her that she wanted to live with the mother. She also became very distressed when discussing that, saying that she was worried that telling her parents how she felt to would get her into trouble. If the father had told C to lie about her mother I have little doubt that she would have told the social worker precisely that because that would have fitted her own agenda and would have given her a further reason why she did not want to be with her father. Ironically, although the father has raised C's disclosures as evidence of ongoing manipulation by the mother, the fact that C has been able to make such disclosures about her mother is evidence that her emotional development and understanding of her situation has matured and is beginning to be more independent and objective.

THE WELFARE ANALYSIS

164. The starting point is that C's welfare is my paramount consideration. Her welfare has to be assessed by reference to the checklist of factors in Section 1 (3) of the Children Act 1989.

C's wishes and feelings

165. C has consistently and emphatically stated her desire to live with her mother. She is an articulate and intelligent youngster who is five months away from her twelfth birthday. In my judgment her wishes and feelings are capable of being accorded significant weight. The complicating factor here is the court's previous finding that she has been substantially influenced and affected by her mother's negative feelings about her father. I pay due regard to Dr Down's analysis but I cannot see anything in it to lead me to conclude that the child is asking for something she does not really want simply out of a sense of loyalty to or protectiveness of her mother. I find C's wishes to return to the full time care of her mother to be authentic, very strongly held and consistently expressed. The fact that C continued for a while to accuse her father and stepmother of physically chastising her is evidence that she remained steadfast in her view and making unsubstantiated allegations was her misguided way of trying to engineer a change of residence, even if she had been encouraged to lie.
166. The concern of Dr Downs and the Guardian has been C's feelings towards her father and the real risk that needs to be guarded against is that her relationship with the father will be tainted and undermined if C is fed a consistently negative narrative about him and his wife and if she is unable to form her own independent view of them and to make properly informed decisions. The Guardian has noted a diminution in her negativity towards her father and the allegations against him have ceased. That leads me to think that C may now see her father in a different light. I also see grounds for optimism in the fact that C has been able to contemplate and to talk about having ongoing regular family time with her father and little sister in the future if she were to return to her mother. The fact that C has opened up about her mother having tried to influence her suggests to me that in the two years she has been with her father she has begun to see that her mother's interventions in this way are not healthy and she does not welcome them. That would seem to me to be a huge step forward.
167. A very weighty factor in my decision making has been C's likely reaction if yet again she feels that her voice is not being heard and she is being ignored. That is a clear theme in all her dealings with professionals so far. If I were to follow the Guardian's recommendation it is practically certain that it would provoke in C not just serious distress but also anger and resentment towards her father, the Guardian and the family justice system in general. I think it would potentially harm the relationship with the father that has begun to be more firmly cemented and it would further undermine her trust and confidence in professionals with whom she may need to have further dealings in the future.
168. Whilst she is not yet at an age and level of maturity to be able to act on her wishes as regards where she lives, I think it is certain that there will soon come a time when C will "vote with her feet". I think that when she eventually decides that she must take her own steps to change things she will find the means to travel to be with the mother and she will then refuse to return to the father and probably break off contact with him completely. That being the case I think it is in accordance with her welfare for her to move back sooner rather than later and at a time when it is likely to have less of a disruptive effect on her education and on the relationship with the father.

C's needs

169. C has largely missed out on what every child needs, and that is a stable and nurturing home life. Although her basic physical needs have been more than adequately met by her mother and are being met now by her father, her emotional needs have certainly not been. There is now statutory recognition that involvement of both parents in the life of a child must be presumed to be in the interests of that child's welfare. Unfortunately to a lesser or greater extent both parents have lost sight of that principle. It is obvious that C's emotional and psychological well-being has been adversely affected by being at the centre of parental conflict. Sadly, it may be that the damage already caused is irreversible but what is clear to me is that C needs an end to the litigation, an end to the conflict and an opportunity to have the best achievable relationship with both parents. I think that she also needs a particularly high level of sensitive, empathic, and nurturing care and she need all those things urgently.

The ability of the parents to meet those needs

170. This is the matter that gives me the greatest cause for concern, and it is the reason why there is no obviously correct outcome in this case. It is the matter that continues to be a cause of concern for the Guardian. He continues to doubt whether either parent is genuinely motivated or able to promote C's relationship with the other whether through facilitating contact or just generally. However, as regards the father the Guardian's concerns are now reinforced by the evidence of the father's disciplinarian approach which demonstrates a striking lack of empathy and a significant lack of emotional intelligence on his part when dealing with those occasions when C is held to have fallen below the standards expected of her.
171. I am very troubled to hear the father's evidence about C refusing to eat, not consuming her packed lunch at school, recently having eaten her evening meal and then vomited shortly afterwards, neglecting her personal hygiene, not keeping her glasses clean and more recently having soiled her underwear. I am worried that the father has previously characterised some of these as mini acts of defiance and more recently he has attributed the soiling of the pants and the neglect of personal hygiene to C's supposed anxiety around contact. His method of dealing with acts of disobedience or lying has in my judgment been overbearing, disproportionate and insensitive. Furthermore, there are clear signs that C's presence in the house and the pressure on the father and his wife to deal with all the problems and issues around facilitating contact are creating tensions. The incident when the stepmother complained about C having brought home "another bag of crap" from the mother's home gives me a very strong clue to the stepmother's attitude to C's mother. Whether she used those precise words or not the incident clearly hurt C's feelings and she was moved to complain about it. The incident would have done nothing but harm C's relationship with her stepmother. Ironically, as regards its likely impact on C, it may well have confirmed to her that which the mother and grandparents had told her; that her stepmother would turn out to be mean.
172. These events have caused me to contemplate how the father and his wife will approach other important stages in C's life, such as when she has her first menstrual period, if she struggles to cope with the hormonal and emotional changes that puberty brings, as she becomes aware of her sexuality or if perish the thought, the current issues over food are early indicators of an eating disorder. I have not seen or heard evidence from the stepmother so I have not been able to explore the extent of her understanding of C's emotional needs. By contrast I have observed the father closely over the nine days of the final hearing. I agree with the Guardian that he is singularly lacking in emotional intelligence and empathy. I simply do not see any likelihood of C feeling able to confide in him about sensitive matters at any time in the future. Naturally, a developing girl would turn to her mother or to another older trusted female relative as regards personal issues. I also think it highly unlikely that C would ever feel close enough to her stepmother to confide in her.
173. I must not speculate too much but I cannot ignore the fact that the arrival of C into the family unit has brought challenges for the father and stepmother. The father has repeatedly mentioned how facilitating contact whether over the internet or in person has impinged upon his family life. He has resented the fact that he has had to undertake transport duties and to meet the cost single handedly. In addition, if I were to follow the Guardian's recommendation the father would have to meet the significant cost of professional supervision of face-to-face contact for the foreseeable future. I have no doubt that the stepmother is keenly aware of the father's insolvency and the extent of his debt incurred because of this long running litigation. I am sure she will be aware of the significant mental stress that the father has experienced. It would be natural if these matters shaped the stepmother's opinion of C and of her mother. She will only have formed the most negative impression of the mother from this litigation and from what she will have heard from the father. The father in fact accepted that between themselves he and his wife find it difficult to be positive about the mother and that affects how they speak about her. He has not disputed that C is likely to have become aware of these negative feelings.
174. In accordance with his personality profile, the father was at pains throughout his evidence to present himself and his wife in as positive a light as possible. However, I found his evidence that he always tried his best to encourage and reinforce the benefit of C having a relationship with her mother wholly unconvincing. He dropped his guard in his closing submissions when he said that the court still needed to examine whether the nature of the mother's relationship with C was more harmful than beneficial. That echoed his answers to Ms Broughton's questions. Whilst under the spotlight of proceedings the father has facilitated direct contact despite his serious misgivings. The majority of the indirect contact sessions have also gone ahead satisfactorily but problems have repeatedly arisen and the father has often criticised the poor and potentially harmful nature of the video contact but the Guardian has not shared his concerns. I seriously doubt that once proceedings conclude that the father will be motivated and committed to making contact work. I also think that the ongoing practical and financial burden on him will discourage him in that regard.
175. My doubts about the father's ability to meet the child's emotional needs are further compounded by what I have read in the Guardian's written evidence. In his position statement prepared for the hearing on 8th December 23, he includes the following observations. "The children's Guardian has further spoken to C's school who have advised that they have noted that both [father] and his wife appear to be quite stern and cold with C and in that in particular they have noticed that [stepmother's] presentation varies depending on whether she is aware of being observed by school staff. The school has expressed surprise that [father] has sought support from CAMHS for C as she does not demonstrate any behaviour within school that is indicative of such support being required. They have also been concerned that he has requested that C be assessed for ADHD and dyslexia despite the school having not having observed C to demonstrate any signs consistent with either of those conditions. It was these matters that prompted the mother to make a complaint to the police about the father using coercive behaviour by trying to attribute falsely a mental health to C; a type of behaviour sometimes called "gaslighting".
176. The school have observed [the father] to be negative about C's mother and reluctant to talk about her. As far as he was concerned in December 2023 the Guardian felt that " the father also demonstrated active hostility to the mother". His view then was that " the position for C remains very worrying and difficult and that despite her change of residence, C remains exposed to high levels of negativity between the parents and her emotional needs are not fully recognised or met by either of them." I did not detect that there had been any significant change in the guardians view at the conclusion of the evidence before me.
177. The mother cannot be said to have been supportive of her daughter's relationship with the father; quite the contrary in fact. However, she has said that she will not obstruct C's contact in the future and I suspect that the proceedings and the removal of C from her care has been a salutary experience for her. The antagonistic and critical tone of her most recent statement leads me to doubt that there has been a wholesale and permanent change of attitude; however, I think there is some force in Mr Broadbent's submission that after the robust judgment of Judge Trotter Jackson every professional has engaged with the mother and assessed her on the basis that she has alienated her daughter and caused her harm. As he says, the findings of alienating behaviour have inevitably "cast a long shadow" over the case. He does not invite me to reopen the findings, but he submits that the mother's attitude and behaviour will inevitably be influenced by her experiences of the father and his behaviour towards her as she remembers it. He submits that in the light of her own negative feelings, she has too readily taken what C has said about her father at face value and has concluded that C was in an unsafe environment when she was with her father. She has now conceded that she was too ready to believe what C was telling her because it resonated with her own experiences with the father. Mr Broadbent says that in accordance with the new guidance from the Family Justice Council, the mother's previous behaviour ought to be seen "through that prism".
178. Mr Broadbent submits, correctly in my view, that the focus in future should be on trying to help the mother understand and to accept that C is physically safe in her father's home and that she is not being chastised, denied food or neglected. If progress can be made in that way it is less likely that the mother's anxiety or negativity will be transposed onto C. He suggests that a Family Assistance Order might be part of the answer. I am troubled by the vitriol and antagonism that exists in this case but it is my experience that when proceedings have been running for so long, parties find it hard to take a non-adversarial approach and they go on the attack finding all manner of criticisms to deploy. It is possible that when cases conclude the previously warring parties may be able to take a more constructive approach and just get on trying to make arrangements work. I have no confidence whatsoever that either of these parents will ever be able to put aside their animosity of one another for the sake of their daughter but I do believe that there is likely to be less scope for further conflict if the child returns to her mother and continues to have regular contact with the father.
179. I am conscious of Dr Downs' view that the nature of the mother's relationship with her daughter is likely to be harmful in the long term if she does not allow C to have space to be her own person and to reach her own conclusions. However, as I have said, C is two years older and a little wiser. Although the relationship with the father may not be fully cemented, she has now had time to see that he is not violent by disposition and she has made no further allegations. Despite her mother's negativity C has been able to speak positively about her father rather than parroting the mother and denigrating her father. C needs a supportive and nurturing type of care and on balance I think she is more likely to receive that from her mother than her father.

The harm that C has suffered and is at risk of suffering

180. I have said enough already about the emotional harm that C has suffered. I have also referred to the further harm that she will suffer in the future. The harsh reality of this case is that C will suffer or be at risk of suffering some harm whichever course I adopt. If I leave her living arrangements unchanged that will be perceived by C as another example of her wishes and feeling being ignored and it would leave her in the care of her father whose ability to meet her emotional needs is seriously lacking. If I send her home it exposes her to the risk of her relationship with her father being weakened again.

The effect of a change in her circumstances

181. As for a return to the mother's care. This would be consistent with what I find to be the profound and entirely genuine affection C has for her mother. It would also respect the child's wishes and feelings that she has consistently expressed and be an acknowledgment of C's distress that her wishes and feelings are always ignored and that her voice is not being heard. Another positive factor is that she would be returning to someone in whose care she feels happy and secure. By contrast although her negativity towards her father has reduced I am satisfied that that she does not feel the same about her father as she does her mother and that is not entirely due to being fed a negative narrative about her father. There would also be the inestimable value to C of being reunited with the horses she loves and having an opportunity to indulge her passion more regularly and for longer. Her desire to get back to the horses, riding and her friends who share her passion has been a recurring theme. It was clear from her letter to C that Judge Trotter Jackson believed or at least hoped that C would be able to continue to pursue her equestrian activities in North Yorkshire but sadly that has not turned out not to be the case. C no longer has a horse at her father's house and the only opportunity she gets to ride is on her contact visits to her mother for four hours a fortnight.
182. The father has often discounted C's equestrian interests as just being something she does with her mum but that is not consistent with what C continues to say. The fact that the father equates C's interest in horse riding with life with the mother is part of the problem as I see it. As I have already said the father has resented how absorbed the mother was in her equestrian interests and how much time and money was spent on it and he also has deep suspicion of members of the equestrian set in the mother's locality who he says were aligned with the mother and complicit in her attempts to alienate him. I do not think he will ever be especially inclined to facilitate C's equestrian interests and he simply cannot afford to purchase and maintain another pony for her in any event. I found the father's evidence that C's interest in horses has waned and that she had found other interests such as girl's cricket to replace it to be wholly unconvincing. His comments to the newly involved social worker about C stage managing her video contact with toy ponies were clearly intended to deny authenticity to his daughter's passion and to promote his own narrative that it is all part of the influence that the mother has over C. If that is the case it chimes with what C has said before that she has been told off at her father's house for talking about ponies so much.
183. I think that we underestimate C's equestrian passion at our peril. It is frequently the case that individuals find relief and respite from their worries and anxieties if they have a passion for something and an opportunity to indulge in it, whether that be the companionship of a pet, the ability to make music, to write poetry, to draw or paint or to engage in sport. The strong impression I have formed is that the riding and grooming of horses or the feeling from just being with them may be soothing and cathartic for C. It is well recognised that equestrian pursuits can have an important role to play in helping individuals with special needs or neurodiversity and I think that an opportunity to put her energy into pursuing her passion may yet turn out to be a vital factor in helping C to overcome the emotional harm that she has suffered. Her changed living arrangements have effectively robbed her of that opportunity and compounded her sadness.
184. A negative aspect of a return home is that she will be separated from her half sister and that she will have to move to a new secondary school. A relationship with a half sibling is important but there is a large age gap and beyond saying that she is "cute", there is no evidence that C has formed a strong attachment to her. I do not foresee a change of school as being a critical obstacle to a change in C's living arrangements. She settled well in the school in North Yorkshire and I anticipate that she will be able to settle again especially if some of her friends are in the same school.

The range of possible outcomes and the court's powers

185. I do not think that the answer to C's predicament is to be found in any arrangement where she remains living with the father. Maintaining the existing arrangements but extending the duration of contact and removing supervision is also not the answer. It would still be perceived by C as very much second best and I think she would still want to live with her mother. Extending the length of supervised family time is not a practical option. The current supervisors cannot be expected to remain involved and the father cannot afford to fund extended professional supervision. I am sceptical about requiring the father to fund professional supervision in any event because regular arrangements will only continue as long as he remains willing and able to pay for it. This shifts the balance of control of parenting time for the mother too far in his favour and the continuation of regular contact between the mother and the child would be too uncertain. Furthermore, requiring the involvement of a professional supervisor is likely to lead to C feeling resentful and frustrated because she is already tired of professional involvement in her life. The aspiration for any child whose parents are separated is to that she should be able to spend time with the other parent in as comfortable and "normal" an environment as possible. Visits to her mother overseen by someone intruding on private time are not in my opinion meeting C's needs adequately. By contrast if C lived with her mother and visited her father regularly there would be no need for supervision, financial costs would be reduced and contact would be normalised. Overall, I do not think that C's ongoing emotional needs will be met by taking any course that leaves her in the full time care of the father.
186. I agree with the Guardian that a Section 91(14) order is required in this case however neither parent should be under any doubt that this will prevent one if them making a legitimate application to enforce child arrangements if the other party is failing to comply. It is imperative that C is given the emotional permission to have a relationship with both parents and a critical element of that is that she must have regular time with her father.
187. It was never the view of either Dr Downs or the Guardian that simply moving the child to her father against her will would cure all the ills in this case. Both saw family therapy as being part of the plan to address the dysfunctional family dynamics. As I have already observed that crucial part of the plan looks increasingly unlikely to be put in place. The plan as envisaged by the Guardian, Dr Downes and Judge Trotter Jackson has inevitably only been partially successful to the extent that the process of alienation has been interrupted, the father and daughter relationship appears to have been reestablished and there is a more solid foundation on which to build for the future through regular family time. It has however failed in the sense that as far as I am concerned it has not and will not address C's ongoing emotional and psychological needs.
188. The transition back to the mother should be facilitated as smoothly as possible as soon as practicable and ideally with minimal acrimony. If there is a gap between C leaving one school and starting another steps should be taken to have work sent home with her so that she does not fall behind.
189. I shall welcome further submissions in due course as to the proposals for carrying the proposed orders into effect and addressing the sensitive matter of continuing support for C as long as she needs it.

HHJ Hale.