IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Thursday, 20th May 2004
Before:
MRS. JUSTICE BRACEWELL
BETWEEN
V           Applicant
- and -
V                     Respondent


Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO
Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers
Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737


MR. M. PIERCY appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MS. R. AMIRAFTABI appeared on behalf of the Respondent.


JUDGMENT
(As approved by the Judge)






1 MRS. JUSTICE BRACEWELL:
2
3 1    This case is to be known by the initials V v. V. I give judgment in open
4 court in respect of two girls, N, aged eight years, and K, aged six years,
5 who are the subject of a long-standing dispute between the parents in
6 respect of issues of residence and contact. I have anonymised all names in
7 the case and I draw attention to the statutory provisions which prevent
8 publication of any material which is intended to or likely to identify the
9 children by name or location. These provisions are s.97(2) Children Act
10 1989, and s.12 Administration of Justice Act 1960. Because the judgment
11 is in open court it is therefore a public document and I consider that the
12 issues raised justify public discussion.
13
14 2     This is neither a unique nor even unusual case to come before the courts.
15 Unfortunately the courts at all levels are well accustomed to intractable
16 contact disputes which drag on for years with little or anything to show for
17 the outcome except numerous court hearings, misery for the parents, who
18 become more entrenched in their positions, wasted court resources, and
19 above all serious emotional damage to the children. These disputes are
20 expensive, and most of them are funded by public finances. They take up
21 a disproportionate amount of time in court, thereby depriving other cases
22 of timely hearing. Constant litigation in respect of residence and/or
23 contact is not only destabilising for parents and children who become a
24 battleground to be fought over at any cost, but it is a process which
25 progressively results in entrenched attitudes as if engaged in a war of
26 attrition. Frequently, as in the current case, it is the mother caring for the
27 children who is against making contact work. I find she has undermined
28 contact to father over a period of years in circumstances in which the
29 children love their father, want to spend time with him, know him and need
30 a good relationship with him. They also love their mother who, in many
31 respects, is a good parent. Had it not been for the breakdown of the
32 parents' relationship, the alienation of their respective extended families
33 and the corrupting, corroding effect of litigation battles, I consider that not
34 one word of criticism would have arisen concerning the quality of care
35 given to these children. What has happened is a tragedy because each
36 parent has much to offer.
37
38 3 In this case there has been constant litigation since the year 2000, which
39 has involved 17 court orders and directions and 16 different judges,
40 including a full hearing before Bodey J. in 2002 in the High Court, and still
41 the case drags on. It is time the litigation was brought to an end for the
42 sake of the children, and the CAFCASS officer, Mrs. C, agrees.

page2
1 4 There is a perception among part of the media, and some members of the
2 parents' groups, as well as members of the public, that the courts rubber-
3 stamp cases awarding care of children to mothers almost automatically and
4 marginalise fathers from the lives of their children. There is also a
5 perception that courts allow parents with care to flout court orders for
6 contact and permit the parent with residence to exclude the parent from the
7 lives of the children so that the other parent is worn down by years of futile
8 litigation which achieves nothing and only ends when that parent gives up
9 the struggle, or the children are old enough to make their own decisions,
10 assuming they have not been brainwashed in the meantime.
11
12 5 This litigation regarding N and K has festered over four years. It is a
13 prime ex4mple of the sort of dispute which could have been nipped in the
14 bud by a project such as Family Resolutions for Early Intervention which
15 is due to be piloted at three centres commencing in September 2004. If
16 this project had been available to these parties when the first application
17 was made to the court and before attitudes had hardened, sensible
18 arrangements for the welfare of the children could have been effected
19 without the need for bitter litigation which has driven this father to despair
20 to such an extent that he has even contemplated walking out of the
21 children's lives.  He recognises the harm which constant litigation has
22 caused to the emotional welfare of his daughters.
23
24 6 Recently Munby J. in Re DF v. M [ EWHC] 727, referred to contact
25 proceedings which have been ongoing for five years as an exercise in
26 absolute futility. I ask the question: how can the situation be remedied?
27 Unreasonable parents, by definition, are difficult to deal with, and the most
28 intractable situation is undoubtedly the unreasonable mother, but judges
29 currently do not have the tools with which to make progress with the
30 unreasonable mother or sometimes the unreasonable father who can flout
31 or frustrate orders with impunity unless sent to prison.
32
33 7 It appears to me that there are ways in which the problems can be
34 addressed. The first consists of improvements in the court process. These
35 are limited and mainly procedural, and will certainly require additional
36 resources. They consist of case management from the date of application
37 to the court, judicial continuity, timetabling to suit the needs of the case
38 and not the slots made available by court listing, proactive orders such as
39 envisaged by Munby J. in Re D and attaching conditions to residence
40 orders under s. 11(7) Children Act 1989. Such improvements are
41 dependent upon a change in the role of CAFCASS officers, so that in
42 addition to writing reports, which must be timetabled to the needs of the
43 case, as opposed to waiting for the availability of an officer to undertake

page 3
1 the task, the officer will be there to monitor the initial stages of contact,
2 help with hand-over arrangements and, if necessary, bring the case back to
3 court before the same judge if problems arise. Such monitoring at an early
4 stage has real potential to prevent frustration and animosity between
5 parents. It needs to be combined with well resourced, supervised and
6 specialist contact centres, of which there are currently too few.
7
8 8 Some parents agree to contact without any intention of making it work, as
9 I find in the current case. At present it can take months for a case to be
10 restored to court when contact has been frustrated. Further delays then
11 occur in a search for a solution, during which time there may be no contact
12 taking place and the residential parent, usually the mother, uses the time to
13 brainwash the child into rejection of the father. The father then applies to
14 commit the mother to prison, by which time there is no hope of an outcome
15 which meets the need of the child to have a good relationship with both
16 parents. The effect of intervention by a CAFCASS officer at the earliest
17 stage would enable these cases to be brought back to court, overnight if
18 necessary, before the same judge. Such improvements in procedure are
19 supported by all the judges, but are frustrated by the lack of resources to
20 deliver. Judicial continuity is essential. For a succession of judges to have
21 to read a case for the first time, often consisting of many bundles, is not
22 only wasteful of judicial time, but it risks inconsistency of approach and
23 adds to delay and dissatisfaction of the parties.
24
25 9 There are undoubtedly difficulties in achieving continuity, particularly in
26 the county courts and the family proceeding courts. In the former
27 jurisdiction full-time judges have other duties in criminal and civil courts
28 which may remove them from family work for months at a time; and part-
29 time recorders, by definition, sit for limited periods in the year. In the
30 family proceedings courts it is by no means easy to convene the same
31 bench of magistrates at short notice. However, these problems are capable
32 of solution and must be addressed by the Court Service.
33
34 10 The second way in which improvements can be effected requires
35 legislation. At present, enforcement of contact orders creates insuperable
36 problems for the courts. Currently, there are only four options available to
37 the court and each is unsatisfactory: one, send the parent who refuses or
38 frustrates contact to prison, or make a suspended order of imprisonment.
39 This option may well not achieve the object of reinstating contact. The
40 child may blame the parent who applied to commit the carer to prison. The
41 child's life may be disrupted if there is no one capable of or willing to care
42 for the child when the parent is in prison. It cannot be anything other than
43 emotionally damaging for a child to be suddenly removed into foster care

page4
1 by social services from a parent, usually a mother, who in all respects
2 except contact is a good parent. Two, impose a fine on the parent. This
3 option is rarely possible because it is not consistent with welfare of a child
4 to deprive a parent on a limited budget. Three, transfer residence. This
5 option is not necessarily available to the court, because the other parent
6 may not have the facilities or capacity to care for the child full-time, and
7 may riot even know the child. The current case is one in which this is a
8 real option. Four, give up. Make either an order for indirect contact or no
9 order at all. This is the worst option of all and sometimes the only one
10 available. This is the option which gives rise to the public blaming the
11 judges for refusing to deal with recalcitrant parents. This option results in
12 a perception fostered by the press that family courts are failing in private
13 law cases and that family judges are anti-father. The truth, however, is that
14 without the weapons to use against what is in essence a small group of
15 obdurate mothers, the ability of judges to do better for fathers is strictly
16 limited. It is not commonly recognised by the public that, in order to have
17 enforcement procedures which are effective, legislation by Parliament is
18 necessary.
19
20 11 The reforms requiring legislation come under two categories. The first is
21 the facilitation to give judges and magistrates the power to refer parties to
22 mediation at any stage of the proceedings. Legislation is needed to reform
23 the family assistance order. To make these orders effective, they should
24 cease to be directed to local authorities and should be directed to
25 CAFCASS. The time limit of six months should be removed. They
26 should not be limited to exceptional circumstances and parties should not
27 be allowed to refuse to consent to the making of an order. In the past they
28 have not been properly funded and local authorities have had the option of
29 refusing to implement them. There must be a commitment to proper
30 funding.
31
32 12 The second need for legislation relates to enforcement. There needs to be
33 a clear commitment to legislation designed to provide the following
34 powers in addition to those currently available: one, the power to refer a
35 defaulting parent in a contact application to a variety of resources,
36 including information meetings, meetings with a counsellor, parenting
37 programmes and classes designed to deal with contact disputes; two the
38 power to refer a parent to a psychiatrist or psychologist; three, the power
39 to refer a non-resident parent, who is violent or in breach of an order, to an
40 education for perpetrators programme; four, the power to place on
41 probation with a condition of treatment or attendance at a given class or
42 programme; five, the power to impose a community service order with
43 programmes specifically designed to address the default in contact; six,

page5
1 the power to award financial compensation from one parent to another - for
2 example, where the cost of a holiday has been lost.
3
4 13 I turn now to the current case. The father contends that the mother has
5 demonstrated implacable hostility throughout the contact proceedings and
6 has, on numerous occasions, unilaterally halted contact in breach of orders
7 of the court. He contends that the mother has continually made allegations
8 against him and members of his family, and that she has acted contrary to
9 the children's welfare and best interests. It is in those circumstances that
10 the father now applies for a residence order in his favour.
11
12 14 The mother denies the allegations. She contends that the welfare of the
13 children demands that they live with her. Her case is that she wholly
14 supports contact, but that it has been necessary for her to protect the
15 children from harm experienced during contact periods.
16
17 15 The chronology which I find established is that the two children, who are
18 girls, were born, in respect of N, on 3' June 1995; and K, on 18 April
19 1997. The mother and father married in 1994, but separated early in the
20 year 2000. A decree absolute of divorce was granted in January 2003.
21
22 16 From the time of separation in early 2000 the father was denied contact
23 with the children, in consequence of which he made an application to he
24 court in December 2000 for a contact order. The return date for the
25 hearing was 4 January 2001, when contact was agreed between the parties
26 to take place on a weekly basis at a family contact centre. In April 2001 it
27 was agreed that contact would increase and would take place outside the
28 contact centre. Thereafter there started the history of allegations by mother
29 which I shall recite at this stage and consider in further detail later.
30
31 17 In November 2001 mother made allegations of inappropriate sexual
32 behaviour towards the children by a relative of the father, a Mr. M; and, as
33 a result, she asked that contact should be suspended. The matter came
34 before the court and no order was made on the mother's application.
35 Father, however, in order to resolve the matter, gave an undertaking that
36 the children would not come into contact with any of his relatives.
37 Thereafter there was an application by the mother to suspend contact, she
38 alleging a breach of the undertakings by the father. The matter came
39 before the court on 5 April, but there was inadequate time for a full
40 hearing. In consequence visiting contact only was ordered until a further
41 hearing of the issues, and upon father undertaking only to take the children
42 on public excursions, not to his home address nor to have any family
43 member accompany him. Thereafter there was a hearing of the

page6
1 respondent's allegations and in consequence contact was ordered to
2 continue both as to visiting and staying contact. Mother's allegations were
3 not found to be substantiated.
4
5 18 However, in March 2002 there was a further allegation by mother that
6 father had breached the undertaking by allowing Mr. M to be present
7 during contact. Mother applied again to suspend contact, but it was
8 continued. Thereafter in May 2002 mother made an allegation that father
9 had left the children with a relative and they had been hit with a slipper by
10 father's sister's husband. Mother then unilaterally stopped contact and
11 applied to suspend it. Investigations by social services found the
12 allegations to be unsubstantiated.
13
14 19 Thereafter there was the final hearing of the contact issues before Bodey J.
15 on 5 December 2002. At the end of his judgment he ordered alternative
16 weekly staying contact to father, plus weekday contact, and an equal
17 division of the holidays between the parents. There was contact in
18 December 2002 in the weeks following that judgment, but mother made an
19 allegation that father had hit the children with a coat hanger and that the
20 children had also been hit by their aunt. Despite those allegations there
21 was a period of additional staying contact at the end of December, but then
22 mother unilaterally stopped all contact, which was not resumed until a
23 penal notice was attached to the order by me on 13 May 2003.
24
25 20 The problems, however, continued. There were a series of anonymous
26 complaints to the father's household to which I shall refer in more detail
27 later. There was an allegation at the end of January/beginning of February
28 2004 that K's face had been scratched by her aunt, and that the children
29 had been taken to see Mr. M in breach of the undertaking. There was a
30 further allegation at the end of February 2004 that K had sustained injuries
31 in father's care and mother alleged that father had beaten K. At the end of
32 March there was an allegation that N had been injured whilst in father's
33 care.
34
35 21 I have heard evidence from mother and father, as well as the aunt, Mrs. T.
36 Wherever there is conflict in the versions given by father and mother,
37 I have no hesitation in preferring the evidence of father. I found him
38 sensitive to the needs of the children, caring, truthful, and, as the
39 CAFCASS officer said, wanting to put his children first, but he has been
40 thwarted by the mother. I was very favourably impressed with Mrs. T,
41 who lives with her husband and family in the same household as the father.
42 She is a very gentle, thoughtful person, who would have a role in assisting
43 father if the children were to live with him. She inspires a calm, quiet,

page7
1 confidence in her abilities, and I have no hesitation in accepting that she
2 has never hit any of the children, despite the allegations of the mother.
3
4 22 I find the mother has little or no credibility. She has an agenda in this case
5 to pretend to support contact, but in reality wants to undermine it by
6 coaching the children to make allegations, by inventing or grossly
7 exaggerating minor incidents in order to justify stopping contact. There is
8 an illusion versus a reality in this case. Mother has sought to present
9 herself as someone who has the welfare of her children at the forefront,
10 who wants to promote quality, but who has felt it necessary to protect her
11 children by presenting them to social services, the police, and hospitals, by
12 reason of what she says she regards as serious concerns in respect of
13 injuries sustained in the care of the father. Before me her case is that
14 father is a good, loving parent, who has an excellent relationship with his
15 children, that the children love both her parents and she wants the children
16 to have substantial contact to father to include staying contact. She even
17 suggested shared parenting in evidence. She has made detailed proposals.
18 She contends that she has always supported contact to father and the only
19 reason why it has not taken place is because the children have returned
20 home with injuries which required investigation.
21
22 23 I am satisfied that the reality is very different. Mother is shrewd and
23 intelligent, but twisted by an agenda of her own. She does not want to lose
24 residence, nor does she want to go to prison for failure to comply, but she
25 wants to eliminate contact. Therefore, she has to present herself as a
26 parent who supports contact, but who is constrained by the need to protect
27 the children from harm. The truth, however, is that she builds up her store
28 of ammunition against father to use when the opportunity presents.
29
30 24 I give examples of the denigration of father by mother. I find that she
31 seeks to denigrate father whenever she sees the chance. An interesting
32 example was in connection with her alleged need for an interpreter when
33 interviewed by the CAFCASS officer for the main report for this hearing.
34 Litigation between these parents has been ongoing for some four years,
35 involving six statements by mother, interviews with CAFCASS officers,
36 the police, doctors, social services, and various hearings in court, including
37 mother giving evidence before Bodey J. All these proceedings and the
38 documents have been in English. However, before me mother has had an
39 interpreter throughout. It was plain when in the witness box that the
40 mother is fluent in English, because she was asked to and did read a
41 number of documents in English and understood them, and on occasion
42 she corrected the interpreter when there was an error in translation. Why,
43 therefore, has mother created this charade? The answer is that she was

page8
1 caught out in a lie by the CAFCASS officer about father and her only way
2 to save face was to pretend thereafter that she did not really understand.
3 I find that mother was insistent to Mrs. C, and said so in English, that
4 father had a criminal record. The officer queried this information, but
5 mother was persistent. She no doubt thought that her information would
6 be accepted without any check. However, when the officer revealed that
7 father had no criminal record, mother, to the surprise of the officer,
8 retreated into a lack of understanding of what a criminal record was and
9 ever since mother has had to perpetuate lack of English in order to
10 maintain her position.
11
12 25 Another example relates to the £10 notes which mother alleges father gave
13 the children to bribe them not to disclose what had happened at contact on
14 29 March 2004 in respect of N, who mother said sustained an injury as a
15 result of a fall from a merry-go-round which necessitated a visit to the
16 hospital. I find the basis for the allegation by mother was an exaggeration
17 by her to show lack of supervision by father when in truth she told the
18 doctor it was a minor accident. The first time mother mentioned the
19 bribery was in evidence. She claimed to have told her solicitor. I do not
20 believe her. Mother never cross-examined father through her counsel on
21 this topic, which was highly relevant to credit. There is no reference to it
22 in mother's later statement which she seeks to explain now by saying she
23 signed it without reading it. There is no mention in the solicitors' letter
24 dated 6 April 2004 dealing with the incident. Mother did not mention it
25 at the hospital in her detailed complaint. This allegation of bribery was so
26 serious, if true, that I have no doubt mother would have shouted it from the
27 rooftops if it had happened. It would have constituted powerful
28 ammunition against father's case. I am satisfied that she invented it in the
29 witness box and lied about father to bolster her case. It was an absurd lie
30 in any event, because nothing serious had happened at contact.
31
32 26 On 29 February 2004 mother had taken K to the Accident & Emergency
33 unit at 9 p.m. giving a history that K had been assaulted by an eight year
34 old cousin who had pushed a chair in her buttock. Mother told the doctor
35 that father hit the children and the doctor recorded this as part of the
36 history. In evidence she denied having said that. I accept the doctor
37 recorded accurately what she stated. According to the mother the doctor
38 said, "We will tell social services that the child is in this condition". I find
39 that was invented by mother in pursuance of her agenda against father. It
40 would have made no sense whatever for the doctor to say that because K
41 told him there was no assault, it was an accident when playing and no
42 treatment was needed. It was a trivial incident which was not reported by
43 the hospital to social services.

page9
1
2 27 Mother further said in evidence that the children came home from contact
3 mentally, emotionally and physically abused as well as being hungry.
4 I reject that completely. It is contrary to an abundance of evidence that
5 father is capable and loving and meets the needs of the children. It is
6 revealing that in her statement of 19 December 2003, at a time when she
7 was wanting contact supervised at a centre, she supported that contention
8 by saying, "I do not believe father is genuine in his concern to see the
9 children on a regular basis"; and she suggested that his application was
10 merely a ploy to obtain a council house. I find mother will say anything,
11 however untruthful, to support her case.
12
13 28 The CAFCASS officer has demonstrated the bond of the children with
14 both parents. In the witness box mother had to concede to her counsel that
15 father is a good father and the children were happy, confident and relaxed
16 with him, but then she had to temper that by complaining that the children
17 were not properly cared for when with him. In her statement of
18 19 December 2003 the mother stated in terms that father had telephoned
19 her the previous month and called her a stupid bitch. However, she said to
20 Mrs. C, the CAFCASS officer, that she had not recognised the voice of the
21 caller.
22
23 29 I question the basis for the attitude of the mother. Does she genuinely
24 think that she has good reason to disrupt contact? Is she being over-
25 protective? Or is she cynically working to an agenda which suits her
26 campaign? I am satisfied on the evidence that from time to time she has
27 had some minor cause for complaint in respect of father. In the past he and
28 his family have not always respected mother and she has undoubtedly felt
29 some hostility from his side of the family. Further, as the CAFCASS
30 officer stated, there have been occasions of minor injuries to the girls
31 which were not the subject of discussion between the parents, and which
32 arose out of accidents when playing, and which, in mother's eyes, may
33 have demonstrated some lack of supervision. However, I do not consider
34 that these shortcomings on the part of father in any way justify the
35 resulting behaviour by mother.
36
37 30 I find it is necessary to analyse in a little detail the various allegations
38 made by mother because, in my judgment, that analysis shows that they are
39 calculated by the mother to undermine the children's contact with father.
40 The first allegation relates to the sexual abuse allegation. It arose on
41 20 November 2001 by letter from the mother's solicitors, in which it was
42 alleged that Mr. M resides in the same house as father and has touched the
43 children inappropriately by touching, or attempting to touch, their bottoms,

page10
1 and that he has kissed them. In response, the father's solicitors stated that
2 the allegations were malicious. They further indicated, as was the case,
3 that Mr. M did not reside in the same house as the father but lived
4 elsewhere at some distance. The mother then applied to the court claiming
5 that Mr. M had touched and kissed the children inappropriately. Mother
6 made a report to social services. By this time her allegation was more
7 explicit and detailed. She said that N had told her that her uncle had put
8 his hand down her knickers, pinched her vagina, she had then closed her
9 legs because she did not like what he was doing and he removed his hand.
10 The uncle had then repeated this with her sister, K, and N stated that uncle
11 had kissed them both on the lips. Mother, however, then refused to give
12 permission for the children to be interviewed and stated that the whole
13 incident had been a misunderstanding. However, they were interviewed by
14 a detective constable some time later at school. N then stated that she had
15 been in the sitting room with her uncle who had touched her bottom over
16 her clothes, squeezed her bottom, and it hurt. She said she saw her uncle
17 do the same to her sister, K. K made no disclosures. Social services
18 recommended that no further action be taken. Father, however, agreed that
19 he would ensure there was no contact between Mr. M and the children.
20 Social services assessed that the children were not at risk of any significant
21 harm.
22
23 31 However, mother had continued to raise this allegation of sexual abuse at
24 every opportunity. I find that there is no substance in the allegation of
25 sexual abuse for the following reasons: mother alleged that the incident
26 occurred in October 2001, but it was reported for the first time by mother
27 some three weeks later at a time when she had already threatened the father
28 that she would make allegations in order to stop contact. When the mother
29 first made the allegation it was vague. Later it became specific and in
30 detail, although mother claimed at one stage it was a misunderstanding.
31 When eventually the children were interviewed the account given by N
32 was radically different from that given by her mother. There are many
33 examples within the papers of mother coaching the children, which has
34 been apparent both to the detective constable and to the CAFCASS officer.
35 This I find is one of those examples. Both the father and the uncle should
36 be released from their undertakings.
37
38 32 Mother's allegation that father breached the undertaking: there is a clear
39 conflict of evidence between father and mother. Father states no such
40 contact has ever taken place. Mother, relying on what she says the
41 children have told her, contends that it has. The latest allegation in this
42 respect is a letter from her solicitors dated 6 February 2004 that the father
43 took them to see uncle in his new property in a named area of London. It

page11
1 was pointed out in reply that that information is wholly inaccurate and the
2 uncle does not live in that particular area and, in any event, during the time
3 alleged by the mother when this contact took place, the children were with
4 their father in Birmingham. I prefer the evidence of the father.
5
6 33 Mother alleged the children were severely beaten by Mr. K, the husband of
7 Mrs. T, during week-end contact in May 2002. The allegation surfaced in
8 a letter from the mother's solicitor. There was an allegation that N and K
9 had been hit on their bottom and legs with a slipper for crying. On that
10 basis the mother stopped contact and applied to suspend it. When she was
11 interviewed by a detective constable she claimed the children had been
12 severely beaten. There was a s.47 investigation by social services. Neither
13 child supported the contention in any way and they stated in terms that
14 they had never been disciplined in any way by Mr. K, let alone severely
15 beaten. I find that that allegation was false and made by mother to justify
16 her stopping contact.
17
18 34 There is a further allegation that during staying contact in December 2002
19 the children were hit by their father with a coat hanger, that Mrs. T kicked
20 N, causing a scratch, and pinched K, and further that they had been
21 allowed to meet Mr. M. These allegations were raised in a letter from
22 mothefs solicitors in January 2003, and were relied upon to deny any
23 further contact with the children from 1 January 2003 until 13 May
24 when the court made an order for contact, endorsed with a penal notice.
25 Mother claims that the allegations were made to her by the children on
26 26 December. If that is true it is very surprising that she permitted the
27 father to have contact on 29 and 30 December. The allegations again
28 were investigated by the same detective constable, who discovered that the
29 father had been cross with the children, who had gone out without
30 permission, and that he had tapped the children with a coat hanger.
31 N made a complaint to the detective constable that Mrs. T had kicked N on
32 the leg causing a scratch which disappeared when she wiped it. K claimed
33 that her father had hit her on the back with a coat hanger and had hit N in
34 the same place. K also claimed that Mrs. T had used her foot to punch her.
35 The detective constable concluded that it was obvious that the children had
36 been coached in what to say by the manner in which they recounted their
37 version. The CAFCASS officer independently reached the same
38 conclusion. The mother told Mrs. C that there were no signs of any bruises
39 or injuries to the children. There undoubtedly was an incident in
40 Birmingham when the father was worried and cross with the children for
41 leaving the house without permission. There was some incident whereby
42 he may have slapped the children. Neither child was injured or even hurt
43 by the father. I find that the allegation against Mrs. T has no substance

page12
1 whatsoever. In relation to this matter, the mother not only made a
2 complaint to the police, which then resulted in the children being
3 interviewed, but she refused all contact for the next five months.
4
5 35 There then was an anonymous complaint to the police that Mr. K had hurt
6 his own son whilst drunk and that prostitution was taking place at the
7 house. The police came to the house at 2.30 a.m. and concluded that the
8 call was mischievous. On the totality of the evidence I conclude that this
9 was the start of a campaign by mother to make false anonymous
10 complaints in order to vilify the father and the family.
11
12 36 There was a further complaint to the NSPCC about alleged physical and
13 sexual abuse in the home of Mrs. T. It is interesting to note that those
14 allegations were made shortly after father's sixth statement in support of
15 his application for a residence order in which he placed reliance on being
16 able to accommodate the children in the home of Mrs. T. The complainant
17 was female, and there is a very telling detail about the complaint in which
18 the caller contends that her brother-in-law gets drunk and then teases her
19 son by blowing smoke in his face. That is in almost identical terms to an
20 allegation made by the mother in her statement dated May 2001. The
21 mother denied that she had ever made any anonymous complaints, but she
22 said she believes that the allegations made had, in fact, occurred in the
23 home of Mrs. T and that they were credible allegations. There is no
24 candidate for such anonymous allegations except the mother, who has
25 demonstrated a detailed knowledge of the arrangements within the father's
26 household, and it is very sad to be compelled to the conclusion that the
27 mother is responsible for those complaints.
28
29 37 The next matter relates to the alleged assault on K by her cousins in
30 February 2004. The mother took K to the police station complaining about
31 the injury to K during staying contact with her father. She then took K
32 took the Accident & Emergency unit at night on 29 February alleging
33 assault. It is significant that she used this visit to the hospital to have
34 recorded a number of serious allegations against the father and his family,
35 namely that father drinks a lot, does not take good care of the girls, he
36 beats them, and one of the relatives had once tried to molest one of the
37 girls in the family home. K's own account of this accident to the doctor
38 demonstrates that it was a simple accident during the course of play, that
39 the injury was insignificant and did not merit a visit to the doctor, let alone
40 to the police station. I find that mother used a simple and trivial accident
41 as part of her campaign to stop contact; and in doing so she subjected K to
42 an intrusive investigation at the age of 6 involving the police and social
43 services so that she could stop contact to father.

page13
1
2 38 The allegation relating to the injury on the merry-go-round on 29 March
3 2004: this was the incident in respect of which mother introduced this
4 rather startling allegation of the bribery with the £10 notes. Mother
5 stressed in evidence that she considered this to have been very serious
6 misconduct by the father but there is no reference to the bribe anywhere
7 else Within the bundles of documents until she gave evidence before me.
8
9 39 The hospital notes I find very revealing. The doctor has recorded that the
10 mother was "collecting evidence as she feels the children are being
11 mistreated whilst at dad's". There is further recorded that mother was very
12 concerned about previous accidents and the children had been on the Child
13 Protection Register for sexual abuse. Mrs. C gave evidence that after this
14 incident mother contacted her to ask whether she could terminate contact
15 in the light of the incident. I find that this was a trivial incident which was
16 exaggerated by mother in order to build up her case.
17
18 40 There were also further anonymous allegations of an extremely serious
19 nature alleging immigration offences which led to the arrest of father and
20 Mr. K. There was absolutely no truth whatsoever in those allegations and
21 again I am driven to the conclusion that it was mother who made them, and
22 they resulted in a raid on the father's family home and the arrest of him and
23 Mr. K until investigations revealed that there was no truth in the
24 allegations.
25
26 41 The welfare officer in this case has said in terms that both parents are
27 capable of meeting the children's needs, except the mother in respect of the
28 relationship with father and the extended paternal family. In oral evidence,
29 Mrs. C confirmed that she had no doubts about the father's ability to
30 provide for the children in all respects, including their emotional
31 development, and she praised his sensitivity to their needs. She also
32 considered that father would facilitate contact between the children and
33 their mother.
34
35 42 I find father has proved himself to be totally committed to his relationship
36 with the children, despite the obstacles placed in his way. He can offer
37 reasonable accommodation. He has a network of close family with whom
38 the children are very familiar, in particular Mr. K and Mrs. T. The father is
39 committed to provide them with private education with financial assistance
40 from his father. I have no doubt that Mrs. T would help in every way she
41 could and would be wholly welcoming to the children. I find the children
42 are the father's priority. His working hours are adaptable and in
43 emergencies he can rely on trusted members of the family to assist. He

page14
1 would make himself available for the children during school holidays and
2 father has the network of family support which the mother lacks.
3
4 43 The mother undoubtedly has provided the children with a good standard of
5 care, which has been described by Mrs. C as "better than good enough".
6 However, it is a fact that the mother's continued care of the children is
7 incompatible with the children enjoying and benefiting from a normal
8 relationship with their father. This is because the mother is implacably
9 imposed to the children having contact with the father's family, and she is
10 prepared to resort to desperate and injurious remedies to sabotage such
11 contact and to defeat the orders of the court. I find she has coached the
12 children to make false allegations against the father and his family, and she
13 has subjected the children to repeated and intrusive examination by police,
14 social services and doctors. She has attacked the reputation of the father's
15 family without justification. She has involved the children in her lies and
16 her deceit. She has shown an inability to put the interests of the children
17 before her own.
18
19 44 This case is governed by welfare check list s.1 Children Act 1989, which
20 I apply. The wishes and feelings of the children are significant in respect
21 of their age and maturity. These children wish to stay with their mother
22 with whom they have always lived. Their views must be taken into
23 account, but cannot be determinative of outcome, partly because of their
24 young age, and also because they have become so enmeshed in the parents'
25 problems and have learnt to say what they think is expected of them. In
26 order to survive emotionally I find these children, and in particular N, have
27 become skilled in reiterating the views of their principal carer to date,
28 namely the mother; and in consequence their views are tainted by the
29 influence of the mother.
30
31 45 The CAFCASS officer has been involved in this case over a substantial
32 period of time. She, together with a retired colleague, have prepared no
33 less than six reports, including an addendum dated 6 May 2004. She does
34 not feel able to make any recommendation as to where the children should
35 live, because she recognises the traumatic consequences of each alternative
36 outcome. If the children move to father they would be uprooted from
37 mother's daily care, where they have lived all their lives. They would have
38 to change schools and settle into a new environment with father and
39 extended family. The mother has more than adequately provided for their
40 needs, except in respect of the relationship with father. The change would
41 be traumatic, even though each parent has the capacity to care for the
42 children. If the children stay with mother there is the prospect of ongoing
43 battles about contact to father, continued litigation with mother finding

page15
1 reasons to stop contact until father, exhausted from the proceedings, might
2 well retire. There would be, in my judgment, a real risk that father would
3 become battle-weary and withdraw from the children's lives defeated and
4 demoralised.
5
6 46 If the children move to father I am satisfied he would actively support
7 generous contact to mother and encourage the children to have a loving
8 relationship with her; but there is the emotional upheaval for the children
9 to consider as well as the problem of mother not accepting placement with
10 father and perhaps seeking to undermine it.
11
12 47 These children need both their parents. The welfare officer felt compelled
13 to leavethe balance of risks to the court. I ask the question: how can the
14 best outcome be achieved for these children? Which solution results in the
15 least risk, the least detrimental harm? The starting point is that these
16 children, in my judgment, have already suffered harm by means of the
17 emotional abuse by the mother. I agree with the CAFCASS officer.
18 I further agree with her that the situation cannot be allowed to continue as
19 at present because the children will continue to suffer harm if deprived of
20 their relationship with their father. It is the right of the children to have
21 contact with their father. It is for the mother to establish by credible
22 evidence any basis for denying or restricting contact. She has not done so.
23 Her implacable hostility is not a proper basis for denying or restricting
24 contact.
25
26 48 In Re K (Contact Committal Order [ 1 F.L.R. 277 it was recognised
27 that there may be circumstances in which a mother's denial of the
28 children's right to a relationship with the father and his family justified a
29 transfer of residence to father. Any decision to change residence arising
30 from difficulties over contact must be fully justified by affording
31 paramount consideration to the child's welfare. It must not be used to
32 punish a parent.
33
34 49 This is a case in which but for the mother's malign influence the children
35 would have benefited by having the regular and substantial contact
36 provided for by Bodey J. Sadly, the false allegations by mother, in my
37 judgment, are likely to continue as long as the children live with her. She
38 will continue to refer the children to social services, the police and
39 hospital. She will continue to involve them in lies, to coach them, to
40 subject them to intrusive investigations in respect of those whom they want
41 to love and respect. She provides a very bad example to the children by
42 her manipulation and deceit. She seems oblivious to the harm which she is
43 causing. I find that, if left with mother, there will be increasing emotional

page16
1 harm to the children and I agree with Mrs. C that mother's conduct is likely
2 to continue. The use of enforcement procedures, such as penal notice, may
3 have the effect of causing the mother to deliver contact but it will not
4 prevent her from continuing to poison the children's minds against their
5 father and family and building up a case against him.
6
7 50 Applying the welfare check list in relation to physical, emotional and
8 educational needs, the parents can provide equally for physical and
9 educational needs, but the father is better able to provide for emotional
10 needs. The likely efficient of a change in circumstances means that the
11 children will undoubtedly be upset initially to leave their mother but in the
12 longer term will benefit from a change of circumstances.
13
14 51 In respect of age, sex, background and any relevant characteristics, the
15 mother contends it is particularly important for girls to be brought up by
16 their mother, but these children would have the benefit from the presence
17 in the father's home of Mrs. T and father's sisters who are regular visitors.
18
19 52 In respect of harm which they have suffered or are at a risk of suffering,
20 I am driven to the conclusion that the harm and abuse will continue as long
21 as they are with their mother. The capability of the parents means that the
22 father and his wider family are able to provide a more balanced and
23 emotional secure basis for the children in the future.
24
25 53 I make findings of fact as follows: that each of the allegations made by the
26 mother against father and his family are either false or wholly exaggerated
27 out of all proportion. I find the mother has made allegations to frustrate
28 contact and in order to do so has coached the children involved, them in
29 false allegations and has subjected them to emotional abuse by four
30 interviews with the police and visits to hospital which were wholly
31 unnecessary. That abuse is likely to continue while she has the care of the
32 children. The father, I find, is fully capable of providing for the children.
33
34 54 What is the capacity for change in mother? That is crucial because the
35 current situation cannot continue. Mother points to the fact that since May
36 2003 she has complied with the orders of the court, and therefore, she says,
37 that should give confidence that she can be relied upon to promote contact
38 in the future. I do not accept that conversion by mother to the cause of
39 contact for various reasons. One, she has only complied when faced with a
40 penal notice and an application for a residence order by father; but she has
41 continued to work underground to collect evidence against father to use
42 against him. Two, in her statement dated as recently as December 2003
43 she proposed only supervised contact at a contact centre. Three, as

page17/17
1 recently as April this year she instructed her solicitor to ask Mrs. C if she
2 could terminate contact. Four, she constantly dredges up old, stale
3 complaints. Five, Mrs. C has no confidence in mother complying once this
4 court case is over because of her lack of capacity to change. Six, my
5 assessment of mother in evidence is that she will say anything to try to
6 satisfy the court, but her whole campaign is to frustrate contact.
7
8 55 Mrs. C, when declining to make a recommendation, stated prophetically
9 that "it may be that the court will have other evidence which will assist in
10 making a final decision". There is, I find, an abundance of such evidence.
11 Having considered all the factors, weighing all the risks and advantages,
12 I am satisfied that the need for these children to have a relationship with
13 their father can only be met by transferring residence to him. I am
14 confident in his abilities. I, therefore, order a residence order to father.
15
16 56 That concludes my judgment in public. There are other matters that need
17 to be dealt with in private.
18