The chronology of previous litigation is nothing short of eye-watering. Applications have been made in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020 and this case started in 2021 despite a two-year barring order being made by Her Honour Judge Dowding in August 2017. W has been the subject of litigation for almost all of his young life. I have read the comprehensive judgment of Judge Dowding in 2017. It sadly reflects father as a person intent on discrediting and undermining the mother. The judgment demonstrates that father has failed to comply with Court orders or prioritise his relationship with the child. He has used whatever platform he has had at his disposal (i.e. the Court proceedings, social services referrals) to continue his own agenda and in the process has consistently abused mother.
I was not provided with a copy of the section 37 report that was prepared during those proceedings but the judgment of Judge Dowding records details of that report between paragraphs 33 and 35 and examination of the social worker Miss G as a witness thereafter. I was advised by Ms M that this report recommended that father attended therapy. I was advised by Ms M that the psychological report on father in the public law proceedings also recommended therapy.
In coming to a decision about child arrangements, the focus must be on what is best for the child. W is my paramount consideration. In reality, the child has no ongoing relationship with his father and recalls very little about him. I entirely accept that he would want to know about his father, and have a relationship with him if it were safe and beneficial to do so. Children do better when they have a good relationship with each parent when parents are separated. W would not want a relationship with his father if that relationship were unhealthy, abusive, unsafe or undermining of his residence with mother. This child has a need for routine and support having regard to his additional needs.
The Court has already determined that the child should live with his mother. This is all he has known throughout his life, despite short periods when he stayed with his father in the very distant past. She is able to meet all of his needs, including his emotional and developmental needs. She understands his additional vulnerabilities and works closely with the school and other agencies to ensure that W has the best opportunities and provision. There is nothing from what I have read to indicate that W would be better off living with his father, or that he would not be looked after and protected in the care of his mother.
Whilst the safeguarding concerns about mother are not substantiated, there remain significant concerns about father. There are persistent and objective concerns from a number of sources to indicate that father's motivation is focused on his relationship with mother and not his desire to cultivate a good relationship with his son. He has never been in the position of being the long-term primary carer of this child or demonstrated that he can meet his needs. Indeed, he has been negatively assessed as regards a non-subject child in other proceedings. There remains very real concern about father' s presentation.
The Court in 2017 made an order that allowed for indirect contact between W and father and father has not adhered to that order. Without any commitment to indirect contact, father can have no reasonable expectation that the Court would make any order of direct contact or that the child stay/live with him. The father is a stranger to W. Judge Dowding found no evidence of mother alienating the child from father and neither do I. The child is curious about his father. The scuppering of father's relationship with his son is his own doing.
Direct and indirect contact have already broken down. Five years after Judge Dowding's judgment, father presents at least the same level of risk to the child and mother, if not more. The only commitment he has demonstrated is to his campaign to abuse the mother without insight into the impact on the child. There has been no positive change and the risk to the mother and child in my view are heightened by father's failure to acknowledge concerns about his presentation, his inability to reflect and address his presentation, his lack of commitment to the child, the child's advancing age which means that he will be more aware of father's actions now than before, the known vulnerabilities of this child and the ongoing police investigation regarding father.
I have had to consider the ongoing benefits of an order for indirect contact. No indirect contact is happening and because it has not happened, it difficult to evaluate the risk of any previous indirect contact. There is a risk of emotional damage to the child in starting a relationship with father through correspondence for it to subside suddenly or not be maintained. This child needs consistency. Even when agencies such as the school and the Cafcass officer have tried to engage father about the child, he was unable to contain his derogatory views of mother. I place significant weight on the observations of independent and objective agencies about father's presentation, motivation and aggression. I have little to conclude that father would be able to engage in contact in a beneficial way for W. He has not demonstrated that he can so engage or mitigate his focus on mother for the benefit of the child. Indirect contact gives this father a potential platform for further abuse. Both mother and W must be protected from that. Father was warned in 2017 that an abuse of his parental responsibility may lead to the termination of his PR. Whilst that is not an application before me, that may be something that will be considered in the future, if required, as well as any restrictions that the school or agencies may place upon father in how they will engage with him.
I remind myself that an order prohibiting father to have any contact with the child is a draconian and exceptional order; an order of last resort. On balance, I have concluded that the child's welfare lies with an order that there is no contact. In reality, this does not change the status quo as no indirect contact is taking place. If father shows a commitment to change, he may apply to vary this order. Until such time, the risk to the child and mother must outweigh the remote possibility that this father will beneficially and healthily engage in indirect contact.
The law regarding section 91(14) orders has changed since 2017 and arguably it is now easier for the Court to conclude that such orders are necessary in the welfare interests of the child. Even applying the same criteria as Judge Dowding did in 2017, there is ample evidence that father seeks to use litigation as a mechanism to further abuse the mother and this impacts on her mental health, and therefore on the child. The litigation has been relentless, and father has disengaged with this application after almost two years of Court proceedings. I am satisfied that is necessary for me to make a further barring order to prevent father from making applications under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to W until the child is 16 years of age. This does not prevent father from applying for permission to make an application but the Court will pre-screen that application to prevent proceedings starting without a real triable issue being identified and some substantive change on father's part. The Court expects father to demonstrate that he had addressed his obsession/fixation on mother and that he understands the impact of his previous behaviour on her and W. In practical terms, this is likely to be a report from a practitioner showing father's engagement with a programme of therapy, attendance at a domestic abuse programme and pre-prepared communications that he intends to send to the child demonstrating his commitment to healthy indirect contact.
Ultimately the right of this child to have a respected family life with his primary carer take precedence over father's right to have a relationship with his son.
I permit this judgment to be disclosed to parties engaged in the ongoing public law proceedings where father is a party. I also allow the Order to be disclosed to the child's school.