A High Court judge has dismissed a father’s application to have his children attend therapeutic care with a professor who had previously prepared court-ordered reports about them. The parents were directed to engage to agree on an alternative counsellor within 14 days, and the mother was awarded her costs of defending the application, to be adjudicated if they could not agree the amount.
Mr Justice Jordan delivered the ex tempore judgment on 17 June 2020. The father sought to have the proceedings re-entered and an order under section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 dispensing with the mother’s consent to the children attending with Professor S. for ongoing therapeutic care as he considered appropriate. The judge said the court had jurisdiction to make such an order, but the circumstances required to justify it had not been proved.
The children, identified as J. and R., were aged 13 and 10. The mother agreed they should receive ongoing care from an appropriate professional but opposed Professor S.’s involvement. He had prepared two reports under section 47 of the Family Law Act 1995 in earlier proceedings. Orders concerning the children had, in large part, reflected his recommendations. The father acknowledged in an affidavit that the mother did not wish to engage further with the professor. The mother had also provided the names and addresses of three alternative counsellors, but the father did not pursue those suggestions before bringing the motion.
The judge said it was undesirable for a professional who had prepared an independent section 47 report to later counsel or provide therapeutic care to the same children. That could complicate the expert’s independence and create difficulties if the court later needed evidence or a further report. He also considered the parents’ continuing co-parenting conflict and the potential for the application to cause avoidable tension in the children’s home with their mother. The judgment noted that the professor’s first report had recommended ongoing support from him “or some other suitable professional person.”
The court dismissed the substantive application, refused the order sought and directed the parties to engage on choosing an alternative counsellor within 14 days. It also ordered the father, as the moving party, to pay the mother’s costs of defending the application, with those costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement.