F (Children; Contact, Name, Parental Responsibility)
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUGGAN sitting as a High Court Judge
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In private law proceedings concerning the welfare of twin boys, a judge determined that the father's proposed contact arrangements were not in the children's best interests due to his past conduct. The judge ruled to restrict certain aspects of the father's parental responsibility to protect the children and allowed the mother to maintain a temporary change of the children's surname. The welfare of the children remained the paramount concern throughout the proceedings.
JUDGMENT
THE JUDGE: This is a further instalment in long-running private law proceedings concerning the welfare of children. It is, in fact, my first involvement. Previously, the case was allocated to Her Honour Judge Singleton but it was reallocated to me by the Designated Family Judge when it was perceived to be impossible for Judge Singleton to continue with the case. I refer to page B266 of the bundle.
The children with whom I am concerned are A and J, twin boys born in 2011. The mother acts in person. The father also acts in person, although assisted by a McKenzie Friend Mr Thompson. The father resides in South Africa but has travelled to the UK for this hearing. The children are represented by a CAFCASS guardian Mr Moray and counsel Miss Gregg.
The background is a marriage of this couple in 2008 and a separation in April 2013. Following the separation, the children remained with their mother but there was limited contact for the father in the months of May and September 2013. His last contact took place under CAFCASS observation on 28 th November 2013.
The Children Act proceedings have produced a number of orders. On 29 th November 2013, there was an order which is to be found in the bundle at page B50 which was intended to be a final order. The father had chosen not to attend court on that occasion. The court’s order provided for the exercise of professionally supervised contact. Father had in fact indicated that he would not take up supervised contact and he sent a message to the court requesting that his parental responsibility be removed in its entirety. Next the father requested and was allowed to apply to set aside that order of 29 th November 2013. The result was a hearing in front of Judge Singleton which produced the current order dated 28 th February 2014. That was intended to be a final order and is to be found in the bundle at page B231. In essence, that current order provides that there shall be no direct contact with the father except under professional supervision. The father had made it clear that the supervision of contact was not acceptable to him but he was given liberty to apply for the definition of the supervised contact in the event that he changed his mind and wanted to take it up. The order also made provision for indirect contact and contained injunction orders.
After that order of 28 th February 2014, no contact took place. The father did not send any indirect contact. He requested direct contact to take place on four