Key Facts
- •P, a 15-year-old girl, is subject to a Child Protection Plan due to concerns about Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).
- •P currently lives with her father (F) and has supervised contact with her mother (M).
- •Proceedings have been ongoing for almost three years.
- •The court must determine appropriate living arrangements for P, protective orders, reporting of judgments, and financial contributions to therapy costs.
- •A key issue is the weight to be given to P's wishes and feelings and whether she should have separate representation.
- •Multiple experts (Dr. Willemsen, Trish Barry-Relph) provided reports and testified.
- •The court considered allegations of breaches of prior orders by both parents.
Legal Principles
Burden and standard of proof in family cases is on the balance of probabilities.
AS v TH, BC and NC and SH [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam)
Paramountcy principle: Child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
Children Act 1989, s.1(1)
Transfer of residence should not be treated as a last resort; the test is based on a comprehensive analysis of the child's welfare.
Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam)
Long-term supervised contact orders can be made if the child's welfare demands it.
Re S (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 689
Section 91(14) orders can restrict future applications to court if necessary to protect the child from harm.
Children Act 1989, s.91(14); s.91A
Orders under section 8 cease to have effect when the child reaches 16, unless exceptional circumstances exist, in which case they may continue until 18.
Children Act 1989, s.91(10)(10A)(11)
'Exceptional circumstances' are not defined but generally involve a need for the child's protection.
Re M (A Minor) [1993] 2 FLR 858; Re T (a child) [2024] EWHC 59 (Fam)
Assessment of credibility involves considering consistency with known facts, previous accounts, other evidence, and probabilities. Demeanor can be considered, but not solely.
Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230; LCC v The Children (2014) EWHC 3(Fam)
A Lucas direction: Lies do not indicate guilt; other explanations must be considered.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720; Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136; Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
There is a very strong presumption against ordering a parent to contribute to the costs of supervised contact unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Griffiths v Griffiths [2022] EWHC 113 (Fam)
Outcomes
P shall live with F.
This arrangement best protects P from harm caused by parental conflict and M's behavior, while allowing for therapeutic intervention and a positive relationship with both parents.
Protective orders (PSO, SIO, Non-Molestation Order, Recovery Order) remain in force.
These orders are necessary to protect P from M's behavior and ensure compliance with court orders.
Section 91(14) order made against both parents.
To prevent further unnecessary applications and provide stability for P.
Orders enforceable until P turns 18.
Exceptional circumstances exist due to P's vulnerability, need for ongoing therapy, and M's undermining behavior. Extending the orders provides necessary protection and stability during a critical period.
M to pay 50% of expert report costs.
The reports were helpful to the court's determination.
M to pay all future supervised contact costs.
The need for ongoing supervision is primarily due to M's actions.
Judgments to be published, suitably anonymised.
In the interest of open justice, balancing concerns about P's privacy.