Key Facts
- •P, a 14-year-old girl, is subject to a Child Protection Plan due to concerns around Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).
- •Parents, F (father) and M (mother), have a history of high conflict and numerous court applications regarding child arrangements.
- •A Fact-Finding Hearing (FFH) resulted in findings against both parents.
- •P's expressed wishes are to live with M, but experts question her capacity to make this decision due to emotional immaturity and influence from M.
- •Experts Dr Willemsen and TBR recommend P live with F with supervised contact with M.
- •Concerns exist regarding M's implacable hostility towards F, permissive parenting, and potential parental alienation.
Legal Principles
Burden and Standard of Proof
AS v TH, BC and NC and SH [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam)
Transfer of Residence
Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam)
Long-term supervised contact
Re S (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 689
Children Act 1989, Section 1: Welfare of the child
Children Act 1989
Assessing oral evidence and credibility
Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230; LCC v The Children (2014) EWHC 3(Fam); Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 388
Outcomes
P to live with F.
To protect P from CSE risk, address emotional harm caused by parental conflict and M's implacable hostility, and facilitate a positive relationship with both parents.
Supervised contact between P and M.
To allow for a gradual rebuilding of the relationship while mitigating risks associated with M's behaviour.
Therapeutic intervention for P, F, and M.
To address the emotional harm suffered by P and facilitate reconciliation.
Further assessment by Dr Willemsen.
To monitor progress and inform future decisions.