IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

Thursday, 25th August 2016
Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE HARRIS 

B E T W E E N:  

F

and

M

and 

C
(by her children’s guardian)

Transcribed from tape by Ubiqus
Official Court Reporters
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370

The mother appeared In Person
Ruth KIRBY appeared on behalf of the Respondent instructed by Guile Nicholas Solicitors
Barbara HOPKIN of Hopkin Murray Beskine appeared on behalf of the child through her guardian

JUDGMENT
HHJ HARRIS: 

1.	In this case, I am dealing with cross-applications by the father, F, dated 10 September 2015, for variation of a child arrangements order, made by His Honour Judge Altman, dated 5 September 2014, as varied on 19 September 2014, and by the mother, M, for enforcement of the orders of September 2014.
2.	The little girl with whom I am dealing is C, and that is the name to which I will refer to her throughout this judgment. 
3.	She is nine years of age.  She has three older siblings, including a girl called D.
4.	  The father is represented by Miss Ruth Kirby of counsel.  The mother represents herself, assisted by her Mackenzie friend, N.  C, herself, is represented by her Guardian, Dawn Scanlon.  Both she and C are being represented by their solicitor, Ms Barbara Hopkin. 
5.	I heard this case on 22 and 23 August and give judgment today on 25 August. 
6.	The background.  Until their separation in 2012, both parties lived within the Haredi community.  The Haredi community practices a form of ultra-orthodox Judaism.  Its set of beliefs are accurately described as a way of life, and infuse every aspect of an individual’s personal, family, social, and spiritual life.  Both parents were born within the community and the extensive maternal and paternal extended families still live within the community.
7.	The mother became disillusioned and frustrated by the restrictions placed upon her as a wife and mother within that community.  She left the family home permanently with the two girls in December 2012.  While she continued to live within the community for about eight months after she left the father, together with the girls, having been treated, as His Honour Judge Altman found, very badly by community members, and indeed ostracised by them, she moved away from the community and has since lived in another part of London.
8.	With this move, she both geographically and psychologically distanced herself from the movement and all that it represented for her.  Whilst she is still a practising Jew, and a member of the Masorti Synagogue, which she describes as somewhat less orthodox than the modern orthodox tradition of Judaism, she has strongly rejected her former community, and indeed is a member of a support group for former members of the community.
9.	She has in the past spoken to the press about her experiences within the Haredi community.
10.	The father, for his part, has remained living within the community and continuing with the family’s pre-existing way of life.  D returned to the father’s care in 2013, as she wished to continue to lead an orthodox existence.  
11.	Proceedings were initially commenced in the County Court in January 2013 and were then transferred to this court.  From April 2013 to September 2015, they were heard by His Honour Judge Altman.  The issue before him at the final hearing in September 2014 was with whom C should live and which school she should attend, as well as the issue of time spent between the mother and D, the arrangements having more or less broken down by the time of the hearing. 
12.	The court had appointed an independent social worker called Sue Leifer, who herself is an orthodox Jew.  Sad it is to record that the relationship between the mother and her three older children has broken down entirely, and there is currently no contact between them, despite His Honour Judge Altman expressing the strong hope that the mother and D would continue to have some form of direct relationship.
13.	The mother has now lived for some years with her partner EF.  He too is Jewish but, like her, does not practise an extreme orthodox form of Judaism.  C is described as having a good relationship with EF. 
14.	In May of this year, the father married a lady with children of her own.   It is extremely positive that C has formed a very warm relationship with her stepmother and also, in particular, with one of her stepsisters.  The Guardian was able to observe her in the company of her stepmother and formed a very good impression of the latter as an emotionally warm woman who had already formed an attachment with C.
15.	His Honour Judge Altman determined that C should live primarily with her father during the week and continue to attend her Haredi school.  
16.	The court considered, in detail, many of the consequences for C which flowed from her parents’ divergent Jewish practices; in particular, the question of keeping kosher or kashrut at the mother’s home was considered at length.  Indeed, two rabbis gave evidence to the court to assist it on this aspect of the case. 
17.	In its order of 19 September 2014, the preamble recorded as follows, ‘And upon the court noting that the mother is an observant Jew, and keeps kosher in accordance with the practice defined by the chief rabbi, and is a member of a Masorti synagogue’.  
18.	The precise arrangements laid down by the court were that C would spend time with the mother each weekend, in week one, from after Shabbat until the start of school on the following Monday; in week two, from collection from school on Friday until the start of school on the Monday. 
19.	In addition, C was to stay overnight each week from Wednesday after school until Thursday before school.  C was to spend half of her school holidays with each parent, and the Jewish festivals were to be divided equally between them.
20.	I have dealt with this case consistently since September 2015, following His Honour Judge Altman’s retirement.  
21.	In his statement in support of his application for variation of the order, made in September 2015, the father explained how, in his view, the mother’s behaviour was adversely affecting C and causing her confusion and distress.  This was because the mother was ceasing to live the life of an orthodox Jew, including when C was with her.  
22.	The father complained that the mother was providing C with non-kosher food, was driving with C on the Sabbath, was dressing inappropriately when picking C up from school, was allowing her to eat McDonald’s, and to attend mixed swimming classes.  Further, C was said to have reported that her mother and EF would make fun of her school and discuss wanting to change school.
23.	The mother, for her part, complained about the father breaching the child arrangements order in that he failed to make C available to spend time with her on a number of occasions.  She supported the continuation of the existing order, saying that it was working reasonably well.
24.	It became apparent, not least because the mother accepted it, that she had, indeed, not kept to the arrangements as contemplated by the order of His Honour Judge Altman.  Further, this had started to occur within a fairly short time of the order being made.  
25.	The mother explained in evidence that she went through an extremely difficult period, up to the end of the last proceedings, when she considered that the father and the community were trying to stop C coming to her altogether. 
26.	The effect of this on her was that she started to refuse to participate in certain Jewish rituals and ceremonies.  She told me that, whilst she has continued to keep a kosher home, she would eat non-kosher food when she went out.  She told me that from the late summer of 2015, she has allowed C to eat non-kosher food.  This started when C came back from going out with a few of her friends, having been to McDonald’s. 
27.	She did not see why C had to behave differently from her other Jewish friends.  She said that she had been driving on the Sabbath, from shortly after the hearing in September 2014, and that she had done so, because C kept asking her to do so, and this, according to her, was therefore led by C.
28.	On 10 November 2015, I heard this matter for the first time, joined C as a party to the proceedings, and appointed a Rule 16.4 Guardian from Cafcass.  In the event, Ms Dawn Scanlon was appointed as Guardian.
29.	On 15 December 2015, the parties agreed to attend therapy with Carol Edwards, the well‑known independent social worker and family therapist.  The question of the mother giving assurances about how she would conduct herself whilst C was in her care was discussed.  The mother was not able to commit herself to giving assurances on that date but advised that she would consider carefully whether she could do so, and this was recorded as a preamble to the order.
30.	The matter came before me on a pre-trial review on 3 May 2016.  Whilst the mother had been indicating that she would seek a change of school for C, she had made it clear, prior to that hearing, that she was not, in fact, pursuing that issue. 
31.	I was persuaded by the Guardian and the mother that I should adjourn the final hearing to enable the therapeutic work with Carol Edwards to continue, the mother in particular indicating that she was hopeful that this might lead to a resolution of the issues between the parties.  At that hearing, the father was still complaining of the mother making the transition between the two homes extremely difficult for C by failing to adhere to basic tenets of Judaism. 
32.	I made it clear that the differences between the two homes should be reduced as far as possible to enable C to move without undue difficulty and stress between them.  The Guardian spent some considerable time outside of court with the mother, discussing this question of assurances.  In the end, the mother agreed to the following, pending the final hearing, and I refer to B54 of the bundle.  The order recorded as follows: 
‘Until the next hearing, the mother agreed, when C is with her, that she will not encourage C to eat McDonald’s or any other non-kosher food; not drive on the Sabbath if C is in her care; not take C to mixed-sex swimming; not send C to school with non-kosher food; not denigrate or make fun of C’s school; not allow C to watch television when she is in her care; inform the father of any medical or dental appointments that C attends, and the reasons for attending; continue to dress appropriately when picking C up from school, and ensure that C does not enter the mother’s bedroom whenE, the mother’s partner, is in the room’.

33.	Since that day, the mother has complained that she was pressurised into agreeing to give the assurances which she did.  It is also quite plain that the mother, in a number of ways, continued to act in the same way as she had before the assurances were given, and thus broke her agreements to the court. 
34.	I made a further order on 24 May 2016, on paper, having received representations from the Guardian, and then from the other parties, that the father had changed the arrangements for C whilst he went abroad for his wedding.  I ordered that C should spend the period of her father’s absence with her mother.
35.	On 8 August 2016, I refused an application by the father for the instruction of an expert to consider the question of parental alienation.  It transpired, by that hearing, that the father had instructed a private investigator to follow the mother and C.  The reports confirmed his belief that the mother had wholly failed to comply with her agreements given in May.
36.	The mother was seen repeatedly to drive on the Sabbath, including on a trip to Southend on one occasion.  She had also continued to feed C non-kosher food, including McDonald’s, and to take C to a mixed‑gender gym class, although I note that the order itself only referred to a mixed‑gender swimming class.
37.	The father, in his most recent evidence, has spoken of a perceptible distancing of C from him and the community generally.  He had been advised by Carol Edwards not to question C about what she did at her mother’s, and he followed that advice.  However, he reported in his statement that C had ceased to speak to him about what she did at her mother’s.  
38.	Also, she had started to voice criticism of her school, for example referring to the fact that the teachers did not have degrees, and of the community, in terms of, for example, its dress and the appearance of its members.  She also began to be distant from a teacher at her school with whom she had previously enjoyed a very close relationship. 
39.	The father believes strongly that C was being caused emotional harm by what she was being exposed to at her mother’s home.  He put forward, and indeed has put forward for some time, an arrangement whereby C spends the Sabbaths with him, and also spends all the religious festivals with him. 
40.	In her final report, the Guardian, in fact, supported the father’s case for variation of the child arrangements order, whereby C would spend, as I understood it, all the Sabbaths in term time, and all the religious festivals, with the father.  
41.	It came as some surprise to the Guardian that the mother, in her position statement filed on the morning of the hearing, was prepared to accept the recommendations of the Guardian, in C’s best interests, in order, as she put it, to reduce the conflict in the immediate term.  This was a substantial concession which should have led to a significant reduction in the hearing.
42.	Nevertheless, a number of discrete issues required adjudication and, in the end, the hearing took the better part of two days.  I heard oral evidence from the mother, the father, and the Guardian.  The mother chose not to cross-examine the father but she herself was subject to extensive cross‑examination by Miss Kirby, on behalf of the father, and some limited cross‑examination on behalf of the Guardian. 
43.	The issues, in my view, fell into two distinct categories.  The first concerned whether C should travel to her mother on each occasion after the end of the Sabbath on the Saturday evening, including when the Sabbath ended very late in the summer time.  Furthermore, how the holidays should be divided, in the light of the fact that C would be spending significantly less time with the mother in term time and during the religious festivals.
44.	These sorts of issues arise in many cases, and require the application of the welfare principle, having regard to the family circumstances overall, and issues such as practicalities and the logistics.
45.	The second category of issues concern the extent to which the mother should be obliged to adhere to Haredi principles when C stayed with her.  The father, in his oral evidence, identified three fundamental tenets of Haredi Judaism, which he said were, in effect, non‑negotiable.  These were, firstly, keeping the Sabbath; secondly, eating kosher food; and, thirdly, maintaining modesty.
46.	The father stressed that he was paring down his requirements to the bare minimum, and that there were many other practices within the Haredi tenets which he could have insisted upon, for example, not switching on the lights during the Sabbath.  He recognised that he would be unable to eliminate all the differences between the two households, and was concentrating on, to use my words, what he saw as the ‘art of the possible’.
47.	His case is that these particular issues are, effectively, non‑negotiable.  As Miss Kirby put it on his behalf, you cannot be part-time Haredi.  From the religious perspective, she may be right.  However, I have to approach these issues from the welfare perspective, and adopt a more nuanced approach.
48.	For example, some issues may be giving C particular concern, for example driving on the Sabbath.  However, other issues may cut the other way, for example C’s love for, and enjoyment of, her gym classes. 
49.	Miss Kirby, on behalf of the father, and indeed the father himself, emphasised repeatedly that the risk, in this case, was of C being ostracised from her community, which included her siblings, her entire maternal and paternal extended family, her friendship group, and her school.  I am, of course, very mindful of this risk.
50.	Miss Kirby appeared to want me to set out a road map for the rest of C’s minority.  This was not realistic, not least because it would be impossible to evaluate all the circumstances which might be relevant at any particular time when an issue arose.  
51.	The particular issues which fell for consideration were as follows: adhering to the Sabbath, and in particular, not driving; provision of kosher food for C, both at home and when eating out or on holiday; whether C should watch television or film at her mother’s home, and have access to the Internet; whether C should participate in mixed‑gender activities, such as gym classes or swimming; whether C should be prevented from entering the bedroom occupied by the mother and her partner when he was there.
52.	The applicable principles:  The paramount and overriding consideration when deciding these issues is, of course, C’s welfare.  The checklist factors and, in particular, C’s wishes and feelings, the risk of any harm to her, and the effect on her of any change in her circumstances must, of course, be brought into the equation.  This is because some of the activities or patterns of behaviour of C in her mother’s home have taken place for some considerable time, and she derives great pleasure from them. 
53.	The mother and her immediate family’s Article 8 rights are also firmly engaged.  That which the father seeks to impose on her, does represent, in most instances, an interference in her private and family life.  Such interference should only be permitted if it is necessary for the protection of health or morals, which has been interpreted, of course, to include the child’s emotional health and wellbeing. 
54.	It also requires a consideration of proportionality.  It was clear to me that the agreements which had been reluctantly entered into by the mother in May 2016 needed revisiting, firstly, because the approach to them had not been sufficiently nuanced; secondly, because the mother has been unable to adhere to them, in the main; thirdly, because the court did not then have the benefit of the Guardian’s detailed analysis or the written and oral evidence; finally, because the agreements, in any event, represented a holding position being expressed to continue until the final hearing.
55.	My impression of the parents:  The father.  I found the father gave his evidence with dignity.  In fact, he did not evince great hostility to the mother in his evidence.  I felt that he was truthful in what he told me.  He did not, in other words, ‘gild the lily’.  He came across to me as a loving and committed father.  Indeed, in my view, he did not display the rigidity of thinking that I have come across in others with religious beliefs, of whatever faith, at the most orthodox end of the spectrum. 
56.	For example, he has engaged with Carol Edwards and with the Guardian well.  He also appears to accept that C needs to have an ongoing relationship with her mother.  Therefore, this was not, fortunately, a case where he was suggesting that the time spent with the mother should be cut back in a very dramatic way, or that time should be supervised.
57.	His proposals for the future arrangements, in terms of the Sabbaths and the festivals, were, in my view, reasonable, as can be evidenced by the fact that they were adopted by C’s own Guardian and are now accepted by the mother as best meeting C’s needs.  Having made those findings about him, it does not follow that I agree with his approach on every issue. 
58.	The mother.  The mother also gave evidence in a dignified way.  She did not have the benefit of experienced representation as the father had.  The mother is intelligent and articulate.  She has, in my view, shown great fortitude in making a new life for herself, away from the community.  This has left her, understandably, with a certain vulnerability.  Like the father, she is a loving parent, and I agree with the Guardian that she can be reflective. 
59.	I have experienced her, like the Guardian, to be vague and evasive in the past, but that was not so in her evidence on this occasion.  I have to say, however, I do find that the mother can also be manipulative on some occasions.  Again, I did not find her, either, to be untruthful but she does tend to interpret events from her own particular perspective. 
60.	In my judgment, she appears to have moved some way from the picture portrayed before His Honour Judge Altman of her as an orthodox Jew.  She is no longer kosher outside the home.  She drives on the Sabbath and she does not attend synagogue on a regular basis.  This, of course, is not a criticism of her.  It is a statement of the facts.  
61.	Whether this is because the picture presented to His Honour Judge Altman was not entirely accurate, or because she has moved further from orthodoxy since his judgment, I do not need to decide.  However, I observe that, if it is the latter, she seems to have started this process within a very short time of the judgment.
62.	I regret, I have to say, that the mother has displayed poor judgment and insight on occasions.  Whilst she is, of course, free to change her religious practices, she has imposed these changes on C with apparently little thought as to how that might impact on C in the community. 
63.	For example, she accepts that she drove on the Sabbath within a short time of the September 2014 judgment; similarly, in relation to non-kosher food.  She also, in my view, has a tendency to ascribe to C, views which are, in reality, her own.  This was also the view of C’s Guardian.  This is either self-deception or an inability to accept responsibility for her actions.
64.	For example, her upset and anger at the community in the period leading up to the judgment of His Honour Judge Altman led her to abandon certain practices, for example, driving on the Sabbath, but she put across that she did this because C wanted to.  
65.	There is a tendency also to seek to justify her behaviours as being in C’s welfare interests.  It seems to me that much of what she seeks to justify is because she wishes to live her own life in a certain way.  It is also clear, as I have already said, that, having given agreements to the court, she never intended to adhere to most of them.
66.	I was concerned at her statement, in evidence, that the court should not be in the business of making orders that she would find it impossible to comply with.  Those are not her exact words but they are a paraphrase of what she said.  This sentiment was repeated in the email she sent me yesterday.  She has obviously been hugely affected by her own experiences of leaving the community in which she was born and lived.  However, I am concerned that she is, on occasions, prioritising her own needs before C’s welfare, and perhaps sees herself as a standard-bearer for those who have left the community.
67.	I did not appreciate the threats of an appeal and future enforcement proceedings/reduction in contact with C if I made an order with which she did not agree.  I would expect her, as a responsible person, to obey any court order and to put C’s welfare before her own feelings.
68.	I will turn now to deal with the specific issues which relate to the adherence to Haredi tenets.  
69.	Keeping the Sabbath, including not driving.  I should say straight away that I misunderstood the case put by Miss Kirby, that the mother should not have any of the Sabbaths with C.  
My understanding was that, as the holidays were going to be shared, a holiday period with the mother would not be broken up by having to return C to her father for the Sabbath.  It was only when I saw an email Miss Kirby sent to me today that I appreciated the father was saying something different. 
70.	In fact, what he is saying is that, if the mother is out of the jurisdiction with C, or indeed in another part of the country, she can spend the Sabbaths with her but not if she is in London.  That seems to me to be an unrealistic distinction because, if the mother is to have C with her on Sabbaths during holiday periods when she out of the jurisdiction or out of London, I cannot see why the holiday period should be interrupted by her not having C on the Sabbaths simply because she is in London.  The risks are exactly the same, as I see them. 
71.	Together with keeping a kosher home, the Guardian saw this aspect as one of the fundamental tenets of Haredi practice which needed to be adhered to to ensure that C was not caused emotional harm.  The mother maintained that C had not expressed any confusion or distress to her; indeed, the contrary, reporting that C was emotionally upset and, indeed, hysterical, when told that she could not drive on the Sabbath, following the mother’s agreements.
72.	The father has described C as returning to his home in a confused and distressed state, and asking him, for example, whether she was committing a sin.  Given that the community in which C lives, and her school, would regard such behaviour as fundamentally wrong and in conflict with their belief system, I do not find it at all surprising that C would express herself in this way to her father.  I accept his evidence as to how she has expressed herself on this issue. 
73.	In my view, the fact that C is no longer speaking to her father about what goes on at her mother’s home is not a sign that she is no longer suffering any difficulty, but rather that she is internalising the problem, in an attempt to protect herself.  This is a key area, in my view, where the mother needs to adhere to what C experiences in her own community, to smooth the transition, and to prevent her from suffering further emotional harm. 
74.	As I have already said in this judgment, the mother told me that she continued to drive on the Sabbath after she had given her agreement to me because C became quite hysterical when she told her about what had happened.  She advised C that they would not change anything until she had spoken to the Guardian. 
75.	The mother is now saying that she would not drive with C on the Sabbath when C is living with her in the school holidays.  Nevertheless, in view of what has happened in the past, I am quite clear that an order is necessary, so that there can be no ambiguity about the need for compliance with this extremely important matter. 
76.	Kosher food:  The Guardian saw this as the other issue which represented a fundamental tenant of Haredi practice and belief, and where C would be exposed to unnecessary conflict and emotional harm if the mother did not adhere to the kosher regime.  Again, whilst the mother maintains that C did not express any confusion to her, I am satisfied that this is something which has troubled her when she returns to her father’s home, and that she has expressed her anxieties to her father, prior to her more recent behaviour of not confiding in him.  As I have said, I do not consider that this recent development is because she has got over the problem; rather the reverse.
77.	The mother maintained that she was prepared to continue to keep a kosher home in accordance with Beth Din practice, which His Honour Judge Altman found to be an acceptable standard, and which the father is prepared to accept.  She has also said that she will ensure that C does not eat meat when they go out, and that she will eat vegetarian food only.
78.	The mother accepted that eating vegetarian food in a non-kosher restaurant would not represent adherence to kosher or kashrut, as such a restaurant would not be certified by the Beth Din.  As the father explained, there would be no control over the preparation of the food, or what substances it came into contact with.
79.	The mother suggested that this would represent acceptable kosher practice by reference to the beliefs of those that attended the Masorti synagogue alongside her.  Even if that were correct, it does not satisfy the requirement that the Beth Din would certify it as kosher, which was the standard set by His Honour Judge Altman in his judgment, and, as I have said, which would represent the minimum standard which the father could accept.
80.	In any event, the mother also accepted that standard, and I pose the rhetorical question as to what has changed since then, to justify the lowering of the standard?  The mother says that the issue of eating out in restaurants was not raised by the father before His Honour Judge Altman but it must be obvious to her that the father could not countenance any lowering of standards, whether it be within the home or outside.
81.	I agree with the Guardian that there is little difficulty in taking prepared food out when visiting friends or going out on an activity.  There are also many kosher restaurants in the area in which the mother lives.  Subject to one limited exception, my view is that, because this is a matter which is fundamental, I regard it as a necessary interference with the mother’s family life in order to protect C’s overriding welfare. 
82.	I can see, however, that, potentially, difficulties could be present on holiday, and there may have to be recourse to vegetarian food on holiday if it is wholly unavoidable.  To restrict the mother to places where she would have access to kosher food, I consider, would represent an unjustifiable interference with her family life.  However, I stress this should only be in exceptional circumstances, and would be only on very limited occasions. 
83.	Mixed-gender activities:  The mother opposes any constraints being placed in this area, in particular in relation to C’s gym class, which she has attended for at least the last three years, and from which she derives great enjoyment and satisfaction.  The mother says that she is not aware of any single-sex gym class operating in the area.  
84.	Gymnastics is a particular interest of C’s, and one at which she shows particular talent.  The Guardian told me that C performs gym exercises for her whenever she has visited her, and that she shows considerable skill.  I am told also that this class is of particular interest for girls, and is rarely attended by boys. 
85.	This is not something which has been reported by the father as causing confusion for C when she returns to the Haredi community.  Further, as the Guardian says, this is not as overt as driving on the Sabbath or eating out in the community, as it takes place in a fairly private and contained environment. 
86.	I agree with the Guardian that one must look at the effect on C of the change of circumstances that this would represent, as well as her own wishes and feelings.  I agree that if C is barred from this sort of activity, this could have an adverse impact on her relationship with her father, and there is a risk she would regard it as punitive. 
87.	Whilst no-one condones a child having to keep secrets, I consider, as the Guardian did, that there is a difference between C keeping certain matters about her life with her mother as private within the community rather than feeling she must keep secrets.  I do not see this matter as falling within the same category as keeping the Sabbath and eating kosher food, and I agree with the Guardian that one must look at the effect on C of any change in this respect.  
88.	The father, of course, sees this as being the thin end of the wedge, and that, if the court permits this, it will open the way for the mother to allow, for example, C to attend clubs and such like, further down the road.  It could be, as the Guardian stated, that, as C becomes older and more conscious of her body, that her mother should make further efforts to seek out a single-gender gym class.
89.	As I stated during submissions, I cannot legislate for the rest of C’s childhood and adolescence, and I am prepared only to address the issues which are likely to arise in the short and medium term.  It is impossible to assess what the circumstances will be many years further down the road.
90.	I consider, also, that the mother should be able to exercise her discretion and parental responsibility in relation to other activities, such as swimming, but pay close regard to the impact on C of such activities.  In the circumstances, I am not prepared to make an order prohibiting C from attending her gym class or, indeed, any order prohibiting her leisure activities in that respect.  In this respect, I agree entirely with the evidence of the Guardian. 
91.	TV and other media:  The father explains that Haredi families do not possess televisions or have access to the Internet.  He told me that children do watch films or DVDs, and that C has access to a computer at school, although without access to the Internet. 
92.	Again, the same argument is put forward, that C may be at risk of being singled out or ostracised in the community if she speaks of such matters at school or in the community more generally.  Once again, it is a matter of balancing risks and advantages and applying the paramountcy principle, the welfare checklist, and considering the mother and C’s Article 8 rights. 
93.	The mother says that, while she possesses a television, she uses it only for watching films.  She says this is a family activity which the family enjoys together, and the Guardian confirms that the sort of films that C watches, appear to her, to be age appropriate, such as Finding Nemo or Frozen.  Further, this is something which appears to have gone on for some considerable time in the mother’s home. 
94.	The mother says that she has no current intention to use the television to watch programmes but she does not want to be barred from doing so in the future.  The mother also says that C uses the Internet on her tablet to watch, in particular YouTube clips, these showing, for example, gym activities or nature clips.  She says C is a curious child and likes to find out about things.  She says that she has applied strict parental control features to the use of the Internet.
95.	The Guardian does not consider that this is an area which should be proscribed.  Once again, she refers to the effect of the change of circumstances on C, as these activities are things to which she has become used and enjoys.  The impact on her relationship with her father, again, could be adversely affected.
96.	I have no evidence that the mother would not exercise her parental responsibility appropriately to ensure that C is not exposed to inappropriate material.  Further, this does not seem to be an issue which is bothering C when she returns to her community.  It is a matter of striking an appropriate balance.  
97.	I consider that the advantages to C outweigh the risks, in terms of her place within the community.  Further, I do not consider that the interference in the private and family life of the mother’s household when C is with her could be justified on the grounds of C’s overriding emotional welfare.  Put another way, the interference would not be proportionate to the harm caused, or at being at risk of being caused. 
98.	Access to the mother and E’s bedroom:  The father says that no families in the Haredi community have double beds.  No child would ever see their parents in bed together.  He also says that C has complained in the past about seeing E naked on one occasion, although this event is not suggested to be a recent one and appears to have pre‑dated the Guardian’s involvement. 
99.	The mother and C have described C’s pleasure in going into her mother’s room in the morning for comfort.  Again, this is something which has been going on for some considerable time and, as the mother states correctly, in my view, C is less likely to be inclined to do this in the fairly short-term future. 
100.	The mother has assured the Guardian that she and E are always appropriately dressed, as is C, in pyjamas.  I see no reason to doubt the mother’s evidence about that.  The Guardian, for her part, sees this as a wholly natural event which, indeed, enhances bonding.  She agrees, as I do, that this is likely to come to an end in the fairly near future, as C develops and matures. 
101.	This, again, is not something which C has described to her father as making her feel uncomfortable or distressed and, in my view, like the gym activity and the issues surrounding the TV and other media, this falls into a different category from the question of the Sabbath and kosher food.  It is also one of the areas that C is unlikely to feel any need to discuss with her school or school friends.  It is simply something that happens on occasions within her family life with her mother. 
102.	I consider, again, that the benefits to C outweigh the potential risks in terms of her place in the community, and I do not consider that it would be a proportionate interference in the mother and C’s right to a family life. 
103.	I turn now to deal with what are the easier issues, in terms of the collection after Shabbat and the holiday division.  
104.	Collection after Shabbat:  The father suggested, in evidence, taking C to the mother on Sunday mornings at 9am because, on occasions, she is travelling to the mother very late after the ending of Shabbat in the summer. 
105.	I agree with the Guardian that there is no justification for changing this arrangement, which C has become used to.  Equally, there is no justification for curtailing her participation in the Sabbath at her father’s home, which includes being part of the short prayer service at the end of the Sabbath, which marks, symbolically, its end. 
106.	Therefore, I do not agree with the mother’s suggestion that she should collect C 15 minutes after the end of the Sabbath because that would preclude her participation in the full Sabbath ritual.
107.	I also agree with the Guardian that C should not be taken out in the middle of the night to travel fromher father’s home to her mother’s home. .  I consider that the appropriate compromise here is for the mother to collect C no later than eleven o’clock, given that the father requires about an hour and a quarter after the end of the Haredi Sabbath to conclude the Sabbath rituals.  
108.	This would mean that C would go to her mother on every occasion when the Sabbath ends no later than 9.45pm.  I have been provided with information this morning by Miss Kirby, which shows that 14 Sabbaths in the year end at 9.45pm or later.  The father has offered to transport C when the Sabbath ends no later than seven o’clock, which would mean, in practice, that he would be leaving home at 8.15pm.  I consider that that suggestion should be adopted.
109.	When the Sabbath ends later, the mother should collect C.  However, I agree with her that it is essential that she is not kept waiting outside the father’s home, and he must make every effort to ensure that C is available to go out to her mother as soon as her mother arrives outside his address. 
110.	Turning to the division of holidays.  As I said, before I started this judgment, I am still not clear – no-one has provided me with a clear, let alone an agreed position as to the number of festival days that C will spend with her father, or the precise number of holiday days.  I therefore propose to give some general guidance and, if necessary, I will hear more detailed submissions.
111.	The issues here are these.  On the one hand, C will lose the times spent with her mother during the school term and the periods during the religious festivals, which were previously equally divided.  C’s relationship with her mother is precious and, therefore, the court should be looking to some compensation for the time not spent with C. 
112.	The Guardian’s preference, which would have been my firm preference, was that the time should be made up during the term time.  The mother has said that her other responsibilities, in particular her employment, preclude that as a possibility. 
113.	As against the importance of the mother having sufficient time with C or, put in the other way, C having sufficient time with her mother, there is, of course, the question of C’s time spent during holiday with her father and her siblings.  Her siblings are now going to be away for large parts of the year. 
114.	The Guardian also makes the point, with which I agree, that the fact that the father is having C for Sabbaths and for the religious festivals does not equate to quality leisure time because, clearly, there are serious restrictions upon what the family can do during the Sabbath and during the religious festivals.  Therefore, he and the siblings and C need to enjoy other purely leisure time during the holidays.  I have to balance those competing needs of C.  
115.	What is clear is that the summer holiday is approximately five weeks.  In fact, I counted up the days from the mother’s calendar, and it is five weeks and a few days this summer.  I consider that, so far as the summer holidays are concerned, the mother should have C for three weeks, and the father the balance, which will give him two weeks and possibly an odd few days as well. 
116.	As far as the Passover holidays are concerned, there is no difficulty about that because there is a week or so before Passover in the school calendar as holiday, which should be with the mother.  There is no dispute about that, as I understand it.  The Passover period would then be with the father so that holiday would be equally divided.
117.	Halloween and Fireworks Day have been raised.  The father takes no issue about Fireworks Night.  Regarding Halloween, there has been an issue about C eating non‑kosher sweets.  Given my ruling about kosher food, the order that I will make, preventing the mother from providing non-kosher food to C, other than the extreme examples on holiday, applies to Halloween, and the mother will need to ensure that C has kosher sweets. 
118.	However, I consider that this is a harmless activity which C, along with many other young children, enjoys.  The American way of spending that holiday seems to have been imported here now, for some years, and, as I have said, young people, the age of C, thoroughly enjoy what is a harmless activity.  I therefore consider that C should spend Halloween with the mother, with that very important proviso as to kosher sweets. 
119.	In relation to the festival times, there is agreement, as I understand it, that, for some of the festivals, part of the days can be spent with the mother.  That may leave other times to be considered.  As I have said, I cannot be wholly prescriptive about this because I was left with some lack of clarity about the precise days and calendar. 
120.	Turning to the question of communication, this is not something about which I can be prescriptive because it depends upon, for example, the father’s willingness and/or ability to fund the work of Carol Edwards.  The work of Carol Edwards, in my view, has been of great importance to this family.  As I have said, she is well known to this court as a skilled and experienced therapist, and both parents have been able to engage with her and build up trust in her, as has C, particularly importantly.
121.	The father has said that he or the community are prepared to fund the services of Carol Edwards for C to undertake such further therapeutic work with her as Ms Edwards deems necessary.  He is also prepared to fund one further session with each parent, separately, of course, to consider issues such as communication, and any other outstanding issues where they consider she can give real help to resolve. 
122.	Personally, I would have liked to have seen Ms Edwards’ role with the parents continue for a bit longer than that, given that they now are having to adjust to life post this judgment.  The mother is not able, currently, to contribute to Ms Edwards’ fees, and I cannot, of course, oblige the father or the community behind him to do so.  
123.	I simply express my view that, if the father and/or the community could see their way to funding more than one session with each parent, I consider, given the complexities of this case, that would be for C’s benefit.  I can say no more than that.
124.	In terms of how the parents communicate going forward, they are currently using texts.  Obviously more complex issues cannot be resolved by text.  Judge Altman considered the use of a communication book to be helpful.  That did not happen but the parents have both told me that they are prepared to use such book now.  I consider that that is helpful because they can set out, for example, any issues concerning C’s health or other issues which need communicating.  
125.	C should not carry the book, as it was suggested, I think, by the mother.  I agree with the Guardian that she would be likely to want to read it.  She should not have to take it into school and the parents will have to think of some other way of the book passing between them.
126.	In terms of future communication, the father’s new wife has, very helpfully, indicated that she would be prepared to act as a go-between.  The mother appears to have confidence in that as a proposal but I recognise, given the complexities of this case and the personalities involved, that that may be presenting her with a significant challenge.  
127.	Furthermore, as Ms Hopkin said, one would not want that to happen over-quickly – after all, she has only been living within the family for a matter of months – and something may happen, which spoils that proposal as a source of communication going forward.  I cannot resolve the issue, as I have said.  I have expressed my views about what I would like to see happen.  
128.	Also, if there are any significant difficulties of the sort which might be likely to lead to future court applications, I strongly consider that Ms Edwards should be engaged to attempt to mediate the issue before there is any recourse to the court. 
129.	This case has been in the court arena for far too long.  Being within the court produces stresses for C in particular when she has to be spoken to by different professionals, however sensitive they are, and stress and emotional difficulty also for both the parents. 
130.	The Guardian, through Ms Hopkin, has raised with me the question of some form of Section 91(14) restriction.  I always consider that a restriction of that sort potentially feels something of a stigma to parents.  
131.	My preferred course is to reserve the question of any further applications to myself.  I will exercise a very strict approach, akin to an approach where there is a Section 91.(4) restriction, whereby, if I consider that the issue is one which should not lead to a full investigation, I will rule.  The issue will be dealt with in a more summary way which would be well within my case-management powers.  
132.	Therefore, that should, I hope, avoid the need for further litigation, unless it is absolutely essential.  Even if there is alleged to be a breach of an order by either side, it seems to me that that issue should be something which should go to Carol Edwards to attempt to mediate before rushing back to the court, seeking enforcement. 
133.	That is my judgment in this case.  I will deal, and help as far as I can, with any further issues as to the division of holidays, although I hope I have given some guidance on that issue.