X and Y (Children : Welfare: Fabricated Induced Illness)

everyone. I agree wholeheartedly with that observation and hope that those matters can be taken forward by the local authority in a proactive way. 16 Before I turn to the question of contact, I make an observation about the allegations of domestic violence made by the parents against each other upon which the local authority sought findings. I have before me today a document agreed between the local authority and the father and one upon which the children’s guardian is neutral. That document concerns three incidents: one in July 2013; one in August 2017; and one in September 2017. The mother, given her absence today, has not been able to agree the contents of that document and the local authority told me that there had been an amendment to paragraph 4 of that document removing the final three sentences. 17 I note that what has been agreed between the local authority and the father endorses much of what the mother complained about in her statements save in relation to the incident that took place on 14 September 2017. In respect of that latter incident, I make no findings. It seems to me to be unnecessary to do so. The mother is not here to advance the positive case that she puts forward but, in any event, the evidence seems to me to be problematic because it is said that she admitted to the father she had fabricated part of her evidence in support of the allegation that the father had forced the door open to the family home throwing the mother backwards such that she hit her head against the wall behind her sustaining a cut lip and a cut to the back of her head. That admission, it appears upon investigation, was only made to the father. He is not here today to provide witness evidence in support and I also note that the mother did not pursue a prosecution in relation to that incident of domestic violence such that the Crown withdrew its case against the father in March 2018. 18 Given the findings I made in relation to the mother’s behaviour towards Y and by extension X and given the findings of the various independent assessments that have taken place, I accept what has been agreed by the father and the local authority but I go no further in making any findings. 19 As far as the supervision order is concerned, I will require the local authority to update its care plans within seven days and to provide an updated written document to each of the parties. I turn now to issues of contact. 20 This is not agreed both as to the amount of contact there should be between the mother and the boys, and to the arrangements for telephone contact. The position of the parties is as follows. The mother opposes any reduction to contact which presently takes place once a week between herself and the boys on a Saturday and is supervised by the local authority. The local authority proposed a reduction to monthly contact. That was supported by the children’s guardian save for the speed of the reduction. The local authority said it should be fortnightly for a period of two months. The guardian said monthly after the end of July. In essence, there is a difference of one contact occasion between the position adopted by the local authority and that of the children’s guardian. The father has agreed to abide by the contact proposed by the local authority and makes no positive submission either way. 21 Given the stage at which the proceedings now find themselves, contact needs to be set within the context that both boys are to live with their father pursuant to a child arrangements order. Contact should also be seen in the context that the local authority agree to the making of a supervision order and that I have decided one should be made for a period of twelve months. Finally, it must be viewed within the context of the very serious findings I made about the mother’s behaviour to Y, and the fact that she does not accept those findings, lacks insight into her contribution to Y’s painful experiences or indeed, as I observe, to the disruption to X’s home life. 22 In that context, the boys need to have their relationship with their mother maintained but not at a level which, in my view, has a disruptive impact on their day to day life. This is not a case where a fairly standard private law order for contact is appropriate. The mother’s care for Y and for X has been found seriously wanting by this court and she remains, given her lack of insight and acknowledgement, a risk to them. The children need to settle in their father’s care and to have some parity in the contact arrangements for each of them. 23 With all of that in mind and standing back, I have come to the conclusion that the level of contact between the boys and their mother should be set at a monthly frequency for up to four hours. It should be reduced, as the local authority suggests, so that there will be three occasions of contact until contact at the end of August which will take place on Saturday, 25 August when it will take place thereafter at a monthly frequency. The contact before then with the mother and the boys will take place on 11 August and 28 July, and again on 14 July if the mother has returned from her duties as a bridesmaid. That allows for contact over the summer holidays but also going forward in the autumn to a more established and predictable routine of contact. I note that X is at school. 24 As far as telephone contact is concerned, the arrangements for X to have contact with his mother have not been, if I may say so, entirely straightforward. The telephone contact should be at a time when X wants it. The fixed times provided for on Wednesdays and Saturdays have caused difficulty and they run up against the reality of family life and of what X himself wants which is sometimes not to speak to his mother at all but sometimes to speak to her. It seems to me that a child-focussed arrangement for telephone contact should permit both X and Y to telephone their mother when they want to speak to her and I understand that the father will facilitate this. That seems to me to be a more sensible way going forward than to hitch the children to a rigid routine of contact taking place at particular times and days. 25 As far as contact supervision is concerned, I have already observed that for the foreseeable future, the mother’s contact requires to be supervised. It should not involve supervision by the paternal family who, in any event, have a major role in caring for these two little boys. There is a possibility, I am told, that the mother’s sister may be capable of supervising contact but if that is the case, that requires a complex piece of assessment work by the local authority. My suggestion would be that the mother’s sister is contacted by the local authority in writing to ask if she wishes to be assessed as a supervisor of contact going forward and then that the local authority undertake that piece of work. They should be at liberty to discuss with her the findings that I made in my judgment as part of that assessment process if she signals her consent. However, a solution for the long-term supervision of contact will need to be found over the course of the next twelve months. 26 Having dealt with the arrangements for contact, the making of the supervision order for a period of twelve months, providing for updated care plans, and also coming to a view on the necessity of whether I should go further than the agreed document of findings, those are my decisions and that is my judgment. __________ CERTIFICATE Opus 2 International Limited hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the Judgment or part thereof. Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 [email protected] This transcript has been approved by the Judge.