The High Court has refused a father’s application for compensatory access and other orders in a dispute over contact with his four children, finding that he had not proved the mother caused the breakdown in contact with their eldest child.
In a judgment delivered on 26 June 2023, Mr Justice Jordan said the evidence did not prove or suggest parental alienation. He found that the eldest child’s refusal of face-to-face contact was likely significantly affected by her father’s plans to remarry and the prospect of a stepmother and stepsiblings. The court said contact should not be forced in light of her views and the circumstances identified.
The father’s motion, issued in October 2022, sought make-up access for time he said had been lost, orders concerning therapeutic support and a parenting course, and possible attachment proceedings over alleged breaches of an earlier court order. The mother denied responsibility for the contact breakdown. The court refused those requested orders.
The court accepted the mother’s account of a disputed September 2022 incident at her home, finding that the father had been angry and behaved in a wholly inappropriate way when the child was distressed. It also accepted the substance of the mother’s account of a December school incident, and found that text messages the father sent that day were an exercise in “evidence building”.
The judge found that the mother had tried to encourage contact, but also criticised her failure to bring the children to the father at the agreed time on Easter Monday 2022. He said both parents’ animosity contributed to contact difficulties, though the mother’s conduct was not the primary cause of the current impasse.
A court-appointed assessor’s report recorded that the eldest child wanted no face-to-face contact at that time but would maintain contact by text. The second eldest wanted reduced contact and said she would like one night a week at her father’s home, but not at his partner’s home. The judge accepted the children’s views as authentic.
The court directed that family therapy continue, with the parents expected to engage constructively. It identified goals including respectful communication and improving contact with the eldest child, as well as addressing contact difficulties involving the other children. The court may give further directions if there is non-attendance or lack of progress. It did not decide costs while therapy is underway.
The parties consented to an order setting a timetable for choosing summer holiday dates, with priority alternating between them by year. The court made that order on consent and listed the case for a further mention on 28 June 2023, or a nearby date agreed by the parties and registrar.