MGM & Anor v F & Ors [2025] EWFC 131 (21 February 2025)

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 131 Case No: LE22P00423 IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT LEICESTER Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 21/02/2025 B e f o r e : MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN ____________________ Between: MGM First Applicant - and - MGF Second Applicant - and - F First Respondent - and - W AND N (Children, through their Children's Guardian) Second and Third Respondents ____________________ The First and Second Applicants (appeared in person) and represented themselves The First Respondent (appeared in person) and represented himself Ms Kathryn Moran and Ms Monique Sherman (instructed by R P Robin Solicitors) for the Second and Third Respondents Hearing dates: 6 February 2025 ____________________ HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 21 February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail. ............................. MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN Mrs Justice Lieven DBE : This judgment concerns N, a girl aged 11. The Applicants are N's maternal grandparents ("MGPs"). The Respondent is N's father ("F"). The Court appointed Guardian, Ms Coring, of Cafcass, represented by Ms Moran at the first hearing and Ms Sherman at the second hearing. The MGPs applied for a Child Arrangement Order ("CAO") for an order that N spend time with them, and with her half-brother, W aged 8. N has lived with the Father since 2021. Very sadly, N and W's mother died in June 2022. The mother had problems with alcohol and possibly with drugs. The F has said over the years that he was worried about N's safety and that is why he kept her in his care. At the heart of this case is that the MGPs have made strenuous efforts to have contact with N, both for themselves, but also very importantly between N and W, but the F has, I find, consistently blocked such contact. In the light of the F's persistent failure to obey court orders the Court, of its own motion, listed the matter for committal against the F. This application came before me on 27 January 2025. The substantive application before the court is an application made by the MGPs for permission to make an application for a CAO (spend time with) in respect of N and (live with) in respect of W. It is understood that the Maternal Family, including W, have not had any direct contact with N since 2021. On 17 November 2022 the matter was heard by Lay Magistrates who gave permission to the MGPs to apply for a CAO. The court granted a CAO (live with) and parental responsibility in respect of W. The court directed a s.7 report to be completed by 17 March 2023 with a Dispute Resolution Appointment ("DRA") to be listed on 27 March 2023. Ms Coring is the allocated Children's Guardian in respect of this matter having been allocated on 5 January 2023 as the Family Court Advisor. The Guardian has completed three assessments in these proceedings, namely a s.7 report dated 30 June 2023, a Cafcass risk assessment dated 6 July 2023, and an updating s.7 report dated 4 August 2023. On 24 January 2024 the court directed that Staffordshire County Council should file a s.37 report. That report was filed on 12 May 2024. The assessment concludes that there are no welfare concerns regarding N and that no intervention/support or assessment is required by the Local Authority. The report recommends that contact between N and the Maternal Family should take place 6 times a year within the community at a neutral venue. The matter was listed for a DRA on 8 July 2024. The F did not attend on that occasion. At the DRA it was agreed that the matter would need to be listed for a contested final hearing. The F did not attend on 8 July but had made his position clear in written documents before the court that he did not agree with the MGP's request for contact. The court made an order for interim direct contact between the siblings pending any final hearing, to be facilitated by the Children's Guardian. The order did not direct the duration or frequency of that contact. On 5 September 2024 the solicitor for the children wrote to the court as follows: "Dear Sirs, I write in respect of the above named matter in which I represent the children through the instructions of the Children's Guardian.. … Unfortunately, I am instructed to write to the court to confirm that she currently is of the view that sibling contact would not be in the interests of either child given the following: 1. [The F] has attempted to control every aspect in the organisation of the contact dictating the dates (2 sessions only), times (30 minutes only), venue and that he must be present or at least in the vicinity with sight of N. 2. [The F] has made it clear that he will comply with the two sessions but will not engage long term in any facilitating of contact once court proceedings are concluded. 3. [The F] has stated that Maternal Grandparents should not be present or involved in any contact sessions but he will wait in the vicinity so that N is comfortable and as contact progresses, his wife can be present to get to know W before it progresses to their home." The matter was listed for a Directions hearing on 25 September 2024 before DJ Birk following the above email being sent and email correspondence from the F, albeit his correspondence has not been seen by the parties. DJ Birk directed interim direct contact between the siblings and N and her MGPs, supported and facilitated by the Children's Guardian. The F attended initially via CVP but did not stay for the entirety of the hearing. The F had not been contactable after that hearing. It appears he had blocked the number of the Children's Guardian. Miss Randall (solicitor) had sent him emails to which he had not responded and she had made numerous attempts to contact him via telephone where it connected and rang but he did not answer. Miss Randall instructed a process server to personally serve the F with a copy of the court order dated 25 September 2024 and the statements of the Applicants following confirmation of the F's address from Staffordshire County Council. The F evaded service. The matter was listed on 20 November 2024 for a final hearing when the F did not attend. DJ Asjad issued a Summons for the F to attend court on Tuesday 26 November 2024. The matter was listed on 26 November 2024 before HHJ Birk who was not content that personal service had been effected and therefore redirected personal service including the order of the 26 November 2024. She gave permission for alternative service to be effected via post/email. The F had sent an email to the court dated 26 November 2024. He continued to evade personal service. The committal application was listed on the Court's own motion at the hearing dated 26 November 2024 when the F yet again failed to attend. I have been provided with the evidence of personal service, and the F's attempts to avoid service of the committal application and supporting documentation. The matter was listed for 27 January 2025 and on 24 January the F emailed the solicitor for the child in the following terms: "I have communicated with Court, I have emailed and tried calling them several times but unfortunately, I cannot make the hearing next week as I simply cannot afford to have a day off work, this will be putting my family in financial hardship, as will applying to appear remotely, I am very sorry but I just cannot afford the fee at the moment." In the light of this email I ensured that the F was sent an email by the court stating that he could attend remotely, but if he failed to attend I would issue a Bench Warrant for his arrest. Presumably in the light of this email the F did attend on 27 January by CVP. At that hearing I heard briefly from the Guardian about her assessment that it was in N's best interests to have contact with W, even if she did not wish to see the MGPs. AD had also produced a detailed report to the same effect. It was AD's clear view that the F was heavily influencing N to say that she did not want to see the MGPs, including the F having suggested to N that he might be sent to prison. At the hearing of 27 January the F said that he was not stopping N from seeing the MGPs but she did not wish to do so. He said that he was not putting any impediments in the way of her having contact with W or the MGPs. At the end of that hearing I ordered that the F should take N for contact with W the following Saturday at a country park midway between the MGPs and the F's home. The contact would be supervised by the Guardian and N would not have to see the MGPs. I ordered that the matter should come back before me on the following Monday for a report as to how the contact had gone. On Monday 3 February the matter came back before me. The MGPs and the Guardian were in court, the F again attended remotely. The Guardian gave an oral update. She told the court that, in accordance with my order, she had spoken to N at school on Monday 27 January after the court hearing. N had said she was happy she was going to see W and seemed happy overall. However, the following day she was reported by the school as being "a scared little mouse". When The Guardian had a video call with her on Friday N didn't want to speak to her, and the teacher reported that N was worried that her father would be sent to prison. On the Saturday, the F did not attend on time, claiming that he did not know where to go. He eventually arrived with N, drove very fast into the carpark and then drove off to the tea room. W saw N and was waving at her. When N went into the tearoom she was described as "vacant and withdrawn". The Guardian made strenuous efforts to help N to relax and talk to and then play with W but she would not speak. She quickly texted the F to say she wanted to leave. N said to the Guardian that she was worried the F would be sent to prison. W went to give N a hug but she wouldn't say goodbye and then left. The Guardian's view, with which I concur, is that the Court and the Guardian have gone as far as we can. Any more "muscular" intervention will cause more harm than good, both to W and N. W was very excited to see N and must have felt upset and let down by what happened at the contact. N was so worried about her father and what she was "allowed" to do and say that she could not emotionally respond to W. The end result was probably two upset children with no emotionally safe way forward. The Guardian's counsel raised the possibility of a suspended sentence on the committal. However, in my judgement, contact which goes forward under such a high level of duress is unlikely to be successful. I have set out all this detail because I hope one day N will read this judgment and understand how hard her Grandparents have tried to have contact with her and to promote a relationship between her and W. The Guardian thinks, and again I wholly concur, that N very much wants to have a relationship with W but the F will not permit her to so. The reasons that the F stops this are really only known to him. That this situation is harming N's long term emotional development is absolutely clear. It is a truism to say that sibling relationships are often the most important familial relationship a child has. N and W are being denied the ability to develop this relationship by the F. However, I have concluded that taking further coercive steps against the F will not further that relationship. I asked the F how N knew that there was a risk that he might be sent to prison. He said that N was very intelligent and had read it in the papers. I have no doubt that the F and perhaps his partner have discussed the matter with N, and had encouraged or allowed her to know about court proceedings in a wholly inappropriate way for an 11 year old. It follows that if the court tries to place more pressure on the F to allow contact, this will probably just make N more scared and reluctant, and make any contact that did take place an unhappy experience for both children. I am also very conscious that W is excited about contact and has high expectations. It is little short of tragic that he is then let down and must feel upset and confused. I did contemplate a change of residence in this case, but I am confident that would only cause N great upset and would not be for her benefit. The evidence suggests that she is well settled with her father and his new family and she is getting on well at school. I have no wish to jeopardise all of that, particularly when there is no doubt that her early childhood living with her mother was difficult for her. This is a case where the court has to accept that there is a limit to its powers. I have agreed with the Guardian that I will write N a short child focused letter explaining how hard the Grandparents, Guardian and Judge have tried to allow her to have contact with W and why that has failed. I will also explain that she can always contact W or the Grandparents directly if she wants to do so. In writing this judgment I have close regard to s.1 Children Act 1989 and the welfare checklist. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII