[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) >> Father v Mother & Anor [2025] EWFC 59 (11 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2025/59.html Cite as: [2025] EWFC 59

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		11 March 2025

Mrs Justice Theis DBE:

Introduction

1. This is the final welfare hearing concerning X, age 10, who lives with her father. The mother and X, through her Children's Guardian, Ms Huntington, are the other parties. The parents separated in January 2023. Save for one occasion in April 2024, X has not had direct contact with her mother since September 2023 but had daily indirect contact via Facetime and messages until the order dated 1 August 2024 when the court ordered that indirect contact between X and her mother should cease.
2. The welfare focus of this hearing is what, if any, contact X should have with her mother.
3. I am satisfied the mother has notice of this hearing and has been sent all the documents. Sadly, the mother has disengaged from these proceedings since November 2023. The detailed evidence from the father's solicitor confirms the steps taken to serve the mother with orders made and evidence filed. The mother contacts the father's solicitor about other matters but refuses to participate in these proceedings.
4. A two day fact finding hearing took place in March 2024, detailed in the written judgment dated 27 March 2024 (Re X (No 1 Fact Finding) [2024] EWFC 224), and a further two day hearing took place in July which resulted in the judgment dated 1 August 2024 (Re X (No 2 Parental Order and Child Arrangements) [2024] EWFC 225) when the court made a parental order, child arrangements order providing for X to live with the father, a non- molestation order and an order that stopped contact between X and her mother. This was to enable X to start the therapeutic support recommended by Dr Willemsen and the Children's Guardian. That therapy started in January 2025 and continues to date.
5. At this hearing I considered the updated evidence and heard submissions from Ms Fottrell KC on behalf of the father and Ms Coyle, on behalf of the Children's Guardian.

Relevant background

6. The detailed background is set out in the two previous judgments, which should be read together with this judgment. As a result, it is only necessary to give a summary of the background.
7. The mother and father met in 2010. They had both been married before.
8. According to the father, the mother described herself as a successful lawyer who was about to be appointed as a High Court Judge. On their marriage certificate the mother's occupation was 'High Court Judge'. The mother maintains it was at the father's insistence this occupation was put on the marriage certificate.
9. After their marriage they wanted to have children. Following unsuccessful IVF treatment they entered into a surrogacy arrangement in the US with Mr and Mrs Z and used embryos created with the father's sperm and donor eggs. Following X's birth she was placed in the care of the mother and father and came with them, age 2 or 3 months, to live with them in the UK where she has remained. A full time nanny was employed until July 2019.
10. In the US the mother and father secured their legal parentage via a process called 'Affirmation of Parental Status', although the father has not been able to find any documents to confirm this. It appears the parents instructed solicitors to make an application for a parental order here but no application was issued. The father states he did not fully understand the implications of not making the application and felt the mother's status as a judge would resolve any difficulties.
11. In 2017/early 2018 the parents wished to have another child and entered into a second surrogacy arrangement with Mr and Mrs Z. The embryo was created using different donor eggs and the transfer took place in early 2018. Y was born in November 2018, she experienced some complications at birth resulting in some health issues. Y remained in the care of Mr and Mrs Z for reasons that are disputed between the parents. Mr and Mrs Z adopted Y and she remains in their care. Mrs Z told Ms Huntington that within days of Y's birth the mother had informed her that Y would be placed for adoption and that in response she and her husband put themselves forward as adopters for Y. The father said this was at a time when the mother's behaviour was becoming increasingly erratic, abusive and dishonest as she was being investigated for fraud. The mother maintains she was forced to proceed with the adoption. The father maintains the agreement between the parents not to tell X about Y was broken when the mother informed X of Y and alleged that the mother had been forced to give up Y for adoption.
12. In April 2018 the father states he became aware the mother was being investigated for fraud. She was charged with fraud, pleaded guilty in late 2020 and in February 2021 was given a two year suspended sentence. The fraud extended over a number of years, between 2013 to 2017 and involved receipt of housing benefit for a property the mother did not reside in. At about that time, according to the father, he found out the mother was not a judge, describing it as shocking that she had pretended to be one and how he felt foolish for having believed her.
13. According to the father, the mother started behaving violently towards him in June 2019, with further incidents described by him in July, August and December 2020 and January, April, August and September 2021. An incident he described in April 2022 took place in front of X and, according to the father, the incidents became more serious in June and July 2022, which included the mother biting his cheek and grabbing his testicles. In November 2022 the father describes an incident when the mother repeatedly hit his face and body and threatened to kill him. The final incident, prior to the parents separation, took place in January 2023 with a sustained attack by the mother on the father in the presence of X when the father eventually called the police. The mother was arrested and the parents have not lived together since.
14. The mother went to stay in the parent's holiday home in another part of the country and has remained living there since. X has remained living with the father.
15. The father issued an application for a non-molestation injunction. A non-molestation order was made in early February 2023 for 6 months. At the same time, unknown to the father, the mother reported the father to the police alleging serious sexual and physical abuse. It was only following disclosure within these proceedings, in late 2023, that the father was made aware of that. He was interviewed by the police in January 2024.
16. In February 2023 the mother signed an application to the General Register Office to correct details on the parties marriage certificate from 'High Court Judge' to 'Homemaker' on the basis that she had been the subject of coercive and controlling behaviour by the father. The amendment was made in March 2023. The first the father was aware of this was in February 2024.
17. According to the father the mother breached the terms of the non-molestation injunction by trying to contact him or speak to him in March and May 2023.
18. In May 2023 the father was contacted by the local authority as a result of a safeguarding enquiry made to them after the mother was reported to have alleged to another parent at the school that the father had sexually assaulted X by having baths with her and masturbating in front of X. The subsequent local authority investigation recommended no further action.
19. The cross applications made by the parents for child arrangements orders were initially listed on 10 August 2023. By that time both parents had signed the C51 parental order application on 3 August 2023, which was issued on 21 September 2023.
20. Directions made on 10 August 2023 listed the matter for an interim contact hearing on 13 September 2023. According to the father, there had been an incident in mid-August when the mother had confronted the father in a restaurant and been verbally abusive to him. The contact between X and her mother was ordered to be supervised. The mother has not taken up that contact since September 2023.
21. As a result of the parental order application being issued the matter was re-allocated to High Court Judge level.
22. On 22 November 2023 I made directions setting the matter down for a further hearing on 15 January 2024.
23. Up until the hearing on 22 November 2023 the mother engaged with solicitors and was represented by experienced counsel at each hearing, including on 22 November 2023. The mother did not attend the hearing on 15 January 2024 or any future hearings, including the fact finding hearing in March 2024, the parental order application hearing in July 2024 or this hearing.
24. In the judgment dated 27 March 2024, at [53] – [77] I detailed the steps that had been taken to engage the mother in the proceedings and set out the reasons at [77] why I considered the fact finding hearing should proceed.
25. At the hearing in March 2024 after having heard the oral evidence of the father, considered the court bundle, detailed submissions on behalf of the father and the Children's Guardian I made findings that the father's schedule of allegations dated 29 January 2024 were established. They included incidents of serious physical and verbal abuse by the mother to the father and I concluded that the allegations made by the mother against the father were not established.
26. Following that hearing directions were made leading to the hearing in July when the court considered the joint application by the parents for a parental order and what orders should be made on the cross applications by the parents for child arrangements orders. Expert evidence was directed from Dr Willemsen, Clinical Psychologist. For the reasons set out in the August judgment a parental order was made. I also made an order providing for X to continue living with the father and limited the mother's parental responsibility. I suspended the indirect contact that had been taking place between X and her mother due to the risks of emotional harm it posed and to enable X to start the therapy recommended by Dr Willemsen.
27. Following that hearing the indirect contact stopped on 12 August 2024 and the evidence does not disclose any contact between X and her mother since then.

The mother's position

28. As set out in paragraphs 28 – 33 of the August judgment I decided to proceed with the hearing as I was satisfied from the detailed evidence about service on the mother that she was aware of that hearing.
29. The situation hasn't changed. The father's solicitor has taken meticulous steps to ensure the mother has had notice of the hearings, orders made and been served with the documents. The mother continues to engage with the father's solicitors about matters related to the property she lives in but nothing in regarding these proceedings.
30. The Children's Guardian has also continued to seek to engage the mother to meet with or have contact with her. Again such steps have not elicited any response from the mother.
31. As with the hearing in March and August 2024, I am satisfied this hearing should proceed as the mother is aware of it, has decided not to take part at the same time as she has continued to communicate with X each day. No further steps can be taken, or are suggested should be taken, to enable the mother to take part in these proceedings. X's welfare requires decisions to be made about what the arrangements are for her future care.

The evidence

32. Since the last substantive hearing the father has provided two statements, one in January 2025 and the second in February 2025. The court has the report from the Children's Guardian.
33. In his statements the father provided updating evidence about X. She is doing well at school, has secured a place to move to the school of her choice in September 2025 and she has been taking part in a wide range of activities outside school.
34. Therapy started for X in January and the father is receiving therapeutic support from another member of the therapy team. That has progressed well and such specialist support is likely to be needed for the foreseeable future.
35. In his more recent statement the father describes the occasions when X refers to her mother in conversation and how that is dealt with by the father. He recognises that X is a loving child and understandably has affection for her mother. As he noted in his statement 'Outwardly [X] shows little understanding as to what has happened, rather an acceptance of the current situation. This is something that we will explore in therapy at the proper time'.
36. As regards contact between X and her mother the father makes clear his support in the long term for X, if she so wishes, to have some level of contact with her mother but he can't support it now. He considers the therapy has only just started, the risk for X to be disappointed is high bearing in mind the history and would put at risk the benefits of engaging in the therapy. He does not see any change in the mother's behaviour or any understanding by her of the impact on X. He hopes that by engaging in therapy now and with that professional support it will equip X for whatever lays ahead regarding any communication with her mother.
37. The father is clear in his evidence that the existing orders for no contact between X and her mother should continue. This will ensure stability for X through the consistency he is providing. He considers it will be beneficial for X and the father to now move on with their family life away from the proceedings. He recognises the progress they have made and is clear in his intention to maintain that progress. In describing X's recent upset when having to discuss issues about her mother with professionals he was clear with X of the need to continue with the therapy but sees the need for these proceedings to reach a conclusion.
38. In her third report in these proceedings Ms Huntington details her extensive involvement with X and the father. She has seen X twice since August 2024 and had a video call. In between they have exchanged messages. Ms Huntington has continued in her attempts to engage with the mother but the mother has not responded to any of Ms Huntington's messages.
39. She recognises the progress X has made at school and considers whilst outwardly X appears a well-adjusted child who is managing well there are some indicators of emotional fragility and an internalising of her emotions. As she notes 'The matter of [X's] relationship with and feelings towards her mother is a complex one and I consider that she has very conflictual feelings about her mother which she wrestles with and causes her distress'. She considers X has understandably had feelings of loss with regards to her mother and has started to display insecure and anxious behaviours. In her contact with Ms Huntington X has raised issues about contact with her mother. X has shown insight into her position in her discussions with Ms Huntington, reporting that the situation is 'very sad' and that she was starting to get used to not having any contact with her mother but also wondered how she would resume conversations with her due to the passage of time when they had no contact. X was thoughtful about that, saying she would want to take it slow and had thought about sending a latter, although Ms Huntington discussed with her that her mother may not respond.
40. In her report there is a letter to the judge from X. It clearly sets out her conflicted feelings about the position she finds herself in and the understandable distress it can cause her.
41. In her report Ms Huntingdon recommends no contact between X and her mother.

The legal framework

42. The application for a child arrangements order is governed by the statutory requirement on the court to only make such orders that meet the welfare needs of the particular child, whose welfare needs are paramount (see s 1 Children Act 1989). In reaching any decision the court should have regard to the matters set out in the welfare checklist at s1(3) CA 1989.

Submissions

43. In their written submissions both Ms Fottrell and Ms Coyle agrees that in the unusual circumstances of this case there should be no order for contact, direct or indirect, between X and her mother.
44. Ms Fottrell submits the updated evidence from the father demonstrates the mother has withdrawn from X's life. X has now begun therapy and he produces updated evidence about how well X is doing at school which sets out how she has grown in confidence. The suspension of contact with her mother has given the emotional space for X and as a result she has become more settled and been able to stand back from the previous somewhat intense indirect contact X had with her mother.
45. Ms Fottrell draws attention to features of Ms Huntington's most recent report. Her observations about X's emotional fragility, her recommendation regarding no contact which was not what she recommended in June 2024 and her careful analysis of the risks of any indirect contact where any benefits are outweighed by the risks that are involved.
46. Ms Fottrell outlined with orders that are sought, which include a continuation of the child arrangements orders made on 1 August 2024 with some adjustments to cover the move of school and for express permission to be given for the father to apply for a US passport for X. In addition, she seeks a continuation of the non-molestation order for a period of two years. That extension is sought for a number of reasons. First, the history of the case, including the findings made, and the mother attending the holiday property in April 2024 with no warning. Second, the history of the mother breaching orders after they had expired and, finally, the inherent risks involved in the ongoing financial remedy proceedings that may involve the parties coming into contact.
47. Ms Fottrell also sought disclosure of the orders, the judgments, the statements filed by the father and the index into the financial remedy proceedings.
48. Ms Coyle supported the orders sought by the father. As had been clear from Ms Huntington's position in August 2024 she had hoped the suspension of contact would be temporary but had now concluded that X's welfare required no order for her to have contact with her mother without the consent of the father, exercising his parental responsibility.

Discussion and decision

49. It is very clear from the evidence that the stability and security the father has been able to provide for X has met her welfare needs. X has progressed well at school and has a full and active life.
50. Both the father and X have engaged with the therapy recommended by Dr Willemsen. It has only been going for a couple of months and is likely to be required for a significant period of time. The benefit of this is to help equip them both to manage in the future the inevitable feelings of loss X has and will experience regarding her relationship with her mother.
51. The conflict X feels is tangible and real. I read X's letter with very great care as she expresses her feelings so well. She misses her mother and feels real distress about her situation. The therapeutic work will offer narrative work in respect of X's familial circumstances, the court's findings and her birth story. It is anticipated that this work will provide X, as Ms Huntingdon describes it, 'with a realistic view of her mother, and greater understanding of the harmful nature of her mother's behaviour and the risk that it poses to her, in order to arm her against further harm The concerns therefore remain that to re-introduce contact with [the mother] at this early stage would have the potential to undermine [X's] therapeutic input'.
52. I agree with the father and Ms Huntington that due to the history of the mother's behaviour, her failure to re-engage in these proceedings and the risks posed to X by the mother's behaviour there is no evidential welfare basis in which to consider any contact between X and her mother that would meet X's welfare needs. In her comprehensive and perceptive report I accept Ms Huntington's welfare analysis as being well founded on the evidence and her conclusions child centred.
53. I recognise the impact of this on X and that part of her would wish a different conclusion. Like both the father and Ms Huntington careful consideration has been given as to X's wish to be able to send a card to her mother on significant dates. This wish by X reflects her kind and loving nature. However, there is the real risk, in my judgment, for those cards to go unacknowledged and unanswered and could result in further feelings of rejection or may result in unpredictable responses which carry the risk of disrupting X's current stability. These matters will, no doubt, be further explored in therapy and the delicate balance of risks to X will be kept under review.
54. I agree with Ms Huntington that the father has shown himself to be a protective and capable parent and has demonstrated his willingness to be guided by professionals, including the current therapy team who are supporting them both. Going forward it will be a matter for him, exercising his parental responsibility, to help support decisions in the future about if and how X has any future contact with her mother.
55. I agree the other orders sought should be made. The extension of the non-molestation order is required for two years, until 1 April 2027, even though the mother did not have notice of that extension request. The extreme history of this case regarding the findings made about the mother's behaviour, including after the expiry of previous protective orders, her refusal to engage in these proceedings and her wholly unpredictable behaviour in April 2024 justify the extension requested. The period of time will cover X's transition to her new school and the ongoing financial remedy proceedings to their conclusion.
56. For all the reasons set out above X will remain living with her father and there will be no order in respect of X spending time directly or indirectly with her mother other than with the express agreement of the father.