This utterly ugly case concerns a regular attender at one of our branch meetings.  While personally now low as a result of the stress he comes across as very rational and sensible. Seeking no more than what is best for his son. Which is a relationship with him to complement a difficult mother.

Details have been changed to prevent identification.

This would have been hopeful some years ago:

The published lead judgement from ‘McFarlane LJ’, now President of the Family Division in A (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104.

‘The case concerns a girl, born ….1999 and now fast approaching her 14th birthday [in 2013] ...The mother had significant and long standing mental health problems….variously diagnosed….

….the first application for contact...October 2001….Since 2006….eighty two court orders….seven judges...over 10 CAFCASS officers...[others]…. HHJ Goldsack considered that these basic statistics provided ‘the best evidence [of] systematic failure….’’

‘…..The father was unimpeachable….the mother has always been implacably hostile to contact...whenever M had contact with her father it was positive and M loved her father….’

‘….allegations of sexual abuse...five day finding of fact...had not occurred….mother expressed a commitment to promoting contact….not honoured….’ Etc

Finally, a court ordered no direct contact at all. The father appealed and McF agreed with that, ordering a re-hearing….

And went public over something that, in the normal order of things, it would have been – imprisonable - contempt of court to refer to. The final outcome is covered by that and unknown.

But there was hope for change. Especially with McFarlane as President

The inadequacy and the reality are UGLY.

Consider the following (some details have been changed to prevent identification)

The parents had one son, then aged 4 and now 14. The first order for contact was on [exact date redacted] 2013. This was only intermittently observed and recently not at all. The mother now claims the boy does not want contact with his father.

Over the intervening. nearly 10 years there have been 21 hearings, including a fact finding, 6 of them seeking enforcement of earlier contact orders, with 13 judges, 13 CAFCASS officers and several professional reports from Guardians and case workers, psychologists and other expert witnesses. There have been negative comments on the mother’s stance by them and some judges. A CAFCASS Guardian reported that the mother openly admits that the mother does not like the father, and the report suggested the boy had aligned with the mother’s view. Another CAFCASS officer reported that they believe the mother obstructs any progress…

There has been no formal diagnosis of the mother’s mental health, but this has been questioned, including by one of the judges. Recently use has been made of the boy having an illness to explain his poor, sometimes very poor, school attendance. The mother blames the father and obstructs a diagnosis. Finally, this was overcome and nothing was found. Seems very possible it was fabricated and then exploited. The father has failed to get this possibility addressed. The mother is generally uncooperative with enquiries.  She has refused to speak to experts who do not agree with her. One expert report suggested the boy is ‘aligned’ with his mother; another used the term ‘allegiance’.  The mother asserts that the father is unable to deal with adolescents, although he works professionally with them.

The tenor of the expert reports, and of the hearings, was towards exploring things short of, but with the possibility of, a change of residence.  For other things as well as the mother’s attitude to contact. However, during the delays these experts fell away. New ones took a new line. The father felt that they did not so much disagree with the previous ones, as did not engage with them - or his concerns. He was unable to get attention to this. (His ‘bundle’ is now nearly 1,000 pages long.)

It is clear, however, that the boy (now of course a young man) is in a most unhappy situation and does not see or speak to his father or any of his family.

Finally, and recently, an order was made for no contact and the father was banned from making any more direct applications to the court (S91.14). This appears not to have improved the situation, although the father now finds it difficult to get any information apart from continuing poor school attendance.

What is upsetting is that the ‘Child M’ situation is continuing. We suspect that there would be many more. But because the excluded parents – understandably – give up they get no attention.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!