A recent case has highlighted factors that the Court take into account when considering whether to allow an application for a Child Arrangements Order to go forward or be brought to an end.
This case had a complicated and long running history.
CP and M, both women, were civil partners from November 2006 to June 2016. During the relationship they had 5 children all of whom were British citizens and shared the same genetic father – a sperm donor.
At the time the Court considered matters, all of the children were habitually resident in a Gulf State where they lived with M and her new partner.
Following M moving with the boys to the Gulf State, the boys’ relationship with CP became more difficult to sustain. At the time the Court were considering matters, CP had accepted that the elder boy did not wish to see her but CP wanted to have contact with the 4 younger children. CP had however not had contact with the children since 2021. CP argued that M had prevented her from having contact with the boys whereas M suggested that the boys simply did not wish to see CP.
CP’s concern was that the children had been given a false narrative of her earlier roles in the boys’ lives.
A Guardian was appointed who, having spoken to the boys, reported that they were expressing wishes and feelings not to see CP and that to continue with pursuit of this would likely further entrench the boys’ views about not wanting a relationship with CP as well as causing them deep distress.
On behalf of CP, a number of points were put forward including the Court being asked to consider whether there had been alienating behaviour and for the Court to direct a family psychological assessment which may then lead to family therapy.
The primary issue before the Court therefore was whether it should direct (as CP wanted) for there to be a hearing to consider CP’s past involvement in the children’s lives and whether there had been alienating behaviour (and then to consider whether there should be a family psychological assessment), or to bring the proceedings to an end on the basis that to continue it would cause further distress to the children.
The Court, in considering the position, began at the starting point that each child’s welfare is the Court’s paramount consideration.
The Court considered that attempts to change the boys’ minds or encourage them to adopt a different understanding of their life stories would be resented by them and be very likely to fail. The Court considered that there was no clear evidence that the boys’ resistance to a relationship with CP was routed in manipulation by M as opposed to their own experiences.
The Court then went on to say that, whether or not, the Court found that M had engaged in alienating behaviour, the boys’ positions in relation to spending time with CP would be very unlikely to change.
The Court considered that continuation of these proceedings would be highly unlikely to achieve any useful purpose. The Court concluded the proceedings, making no order on CP’s applications save for allowing for memory boxes and the provision of update about the children from M to CP at suitable intervals.
This case is an illustration of the Court deciding that it would not be proportionate to continue proceedings when it was reported that whatever the outcome of those proceedings further attempts to change the boys’ minds was likely to cause them distress and anxiety and to make them even less likely to change their attitudes to the person who is seeking contact. It perhaps not only highlights these factors but also the care that is needed if looking to evidence behaviours that are argued have undermined a relationship with children.
If you face a similar situation and need support please contact our Family Law team on 0345 450 5558 or enquiries@stephens-scown.co.uk