MT v FT
[2024] EWFC 186 (B)
Derby City Council v K's Mother & Ors
7 November 2022
[2022] EWFC 166 (B)
Family Court
A dad's actions made his son dislike his mum. A judge decided the son should live with his mum and see his dad only sometimes, supervised by social workers, because the dad's behaviour was harmful. The judge didn't make a special order to stop the dad bothering the mum because the dad promised he wouldn't.
Key Facts
- •Father's behaviour alienated son K from mother, causing significant emotional harm.
- •Prolonged professional intervention led to K re-establishing relationship with mother and moving to live with her.
- •Father disputes local authority's claims of significant harm and challenges contact arrangements.
- •Mother seeks a non-molestation order against Father.
- •Father's actions included preventing contact with mother, exposing K to parental conflict details, and giving K a false narrative.
- •Expert psychological evidence supports findings of parental alienation by the Father.
- •Father's engagement with professional support was superficial.
- •K's views were influenced by Father, not organic.
- •Father's rejection of daughter also negatively impacted K's wellbeing.
Legal Principles
Court jurisdiction to make orders requires proof that at case commencement the child was suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm due to parenting.
Children Act 1989, s31
Civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applies to determine allegations.
Outcomes
Threshold criteria (significant harm) proved due to Father's alienating behaviour.
Evidence shows Father's actions caused significant emotional harm to K by alienating him from his mother. This is supported by expert evidence and social work assessments.
Contact between Father and K to be supervised, once every two weeks.
Father's capacity to be child-centred is questionable, and supervision is needed to prevent destabilization of K's current settled situation.
Non-molestation order not granted.
Insufficient evidence to justify the order; Father committed to avoiding contact and sharing location information.
Final care order granted with K remaining with mother.
In the best interests of the child, given the circumstances and recent transition to maternal care. Shared parental responsibility is deemed necessary.