On the day I saw them trot across the court waiting room on the way back from meeting the judge, Jamie and Andrew* were 10 and 14. I didn’t know that at the time, to me they looked smaller, younger. But the visit seemed to have gone well, as best I could tell from their relaxed chatter to one another as they passed.
I had attended Worcester family court in March to observe a hearing, expecting to witness a story about domestic abuse play out. I had selected this hearing based only on what I could glean from the court list – two types of case number that told me the case involved two things: children and somebody seeking a protective order. It was an educated guess, but on this occasion it was wrong. True, there had been allegations of abuse, but the story that unfolded as I sat on the periphery of this final hearing was a very different one. It was a story told by the children about their mother’s care and how it felt to them.
The boys had been the subject of a court case between their parents since last summer. It had begun some months after the separation of the parents when the boys started to raise concerns about how their mum was looking after them. The upshot was that both parents filed applications for orders allowing them to solely occupy the family home and to look after the children. The mother asked for an order to protect her from the father. Both complained about the other’s behaviour, but ultimately both agreed to give good behaviour promises to the court as a way to move matters on.
Soon, social services became involved, worried that the children were getting caught between their parents and being harmed by the bitter emotional fallout. By November, a social worker’s report to the court was recommending that both parents should share care, with the boys moving between them, living with one and then the other for a week at a time.
That never happened, because soon afterwards, the boys’ mum agreed that Jamie should move to live with his dad. The reasons for that move weren’t spelled out in the hearing, but the reports make clear that she thought he had ‘problem behaviour’, and had told him so. Her relationship with both her sons was clearly strained and her response to them complaining was to cut off their ability to tell their dad about it. Andrew remained with living with his mum, whilst Jamie found contact with his mum increasingly difficult – and both boys were waiting for a decision by the judge as to what should happen next: Could shared care work? Should Andrew follow Jamie to his dads? And what about arrangements for the children to see their mother?
Now, at the final hearing, it emerged that the childrens’ court appointed Guardian didn’t support shared care: instead she had recommended that both boys should live with their dad. To add to the difficulty, the mother had sent no statement to the court setting out her case and had said she would not come this vital hearing. Various reasons for her absence were given – ill health, a lack of transport, a lack of representation.
So instead, this family’s story was told largely from the perspective of these two young boys, through the text messages that their social worker was later to call ‘cries for help’, through the notes that they had ‘accidentally’ left for teachers to find, through their accounts to their social worker and court appointed Guardian – and through their behaviour, with the elder withdrawing and the younger one acting out.
What the mother had interpreted as the younger boy, Jamie, bullying Andrew was seen by professionals and by her perceptive older child as being Andrew’s response to being stopped from seeing his dad. Jamie’s presentation, behaviour and words all confirmed that he had settled well in his father’s care and felt safer. Sadly, every time he had met with his mother since the move she had talked negatively about his dad, which had caused their relationship to break down further. If he had to go back to live with his mother, said Andrew, he would run away or jump out of the window.
Now, by the time of the final hearing, Jamie was quietly but persistently saying that he too wanted to live with his dad, though he worried about mum’s response when she found out.
The judge had a number of detailed reports which gathered together the childrens’ wishes and the parents’ accounts, considering the concerns raised by the mother of domestic abuse and ‘brainwashing’ of the children. The boys’ accounts were consistent and clear – mum makes us go to the pub when we don’t want to, she shouts a lot and doesn’t listen. She stopped us seeing dad and stopped us playing football. Their text messages to their father before their phones were confiscated, when read out in court, were powerful windows into what life was like for them at home, and helped make sense of why they had voted with their feet and turned up at their dad’s door whilst their mum was in the pub.
The guardian’s report told the court that the mother was still in a state of denial and blamed others for the situation. The childrens’ views about their mother were an understandable response to their experiences and not the product of manipulation by their father.
Her advice to the court was that if nothing was done things would only get worse for both boys. She supported a permanent move of both boys to their father’s care, confident that he would encourage their relationship with their mother – as far as was possible.
The social workers who carried out work with the family described the mother as chaotic, sometimes aggressive and unwilling or unable to see things from the childrens’ perspective. They had been unable to make any headway to repair relationships and the clear message was that this was in the mother’s hands and that it was the mother who needed to change her behaviour, rather than the children or their father.
So, if there was a story of domestic abuse it wasn’t one told during this hearing. It is difficult to see how it might have changed the outcome given the presenting situation and the power of the childrens’ voices, but it was clear that for whatever reason the mother struggled to face the court process after her legal representation fell away (possibly because the good behaviour promises exchanged by the parents triggered a technicality which stopped her legal aid from continuing).
But the judge was careful nonetheless to ensure that the mother had a proper opportunity to attend and take part, postponing the start of the hearing for a day to allow her come to court or make an application for a longer adjournment. She also enlisted the father’s and Guardian’s lawyers to communicate with her to make sure she understood the position (which they did, exchanging emails and phone calls even late into the evening). Ultimately the mother’s response was to repeat that she would not come.
In the end though, a decision had to be made. It couldn’t wait. The boys were aware of the court process, had been to meet the judge and were expecting to find out what was going to happen to them. The pressure on all the family was intolerable. And so, the judge did the only thing the evidence really allowed her to do – she ordered that both boys should live with their dad, who was expected to encourage contact with their mother as best he could. Because of her intransigence, the court didn’t impose an order for specific contact which might turn out to be a poor fit for the situation on the ground, but did record the arrangements the father had said he would work towards, which were for regular and generous contact – if the children would go.
The overwhelming picture from what I had heard and read was of a mother who was struggling to cope, and about whom everyone – including the kids – was genuinely worried, but who was unable to accept help or the need for it. From what I could make out of the mother’s perspective, based on what she had said to the children and social workers, she thought the boys had been brainwashed by their father. The evidence presented to the court didn’t seem to support that explanation at all.
I wondered if it might have been different if the mother had been represented throughout. Possibly. But the issues seemed deeper than that. The mother’s absence and lack of representation meant that there was no evidence from her and there was nobody to challenge the reports the court relied upon. Ultimately the social workers and the judge all accepted and placed great weight on the accounts of these two intelligent, articulate boys who had been frightened and upset by their mum’s behaviour over many months and who wanted it to stop.
The judge delivered a judgment orally at the end of the hearing. In it she promised to write to the children. At the end of the hearing I suggested to the judge that she should consider publishing her judgment. She agreed to give it some thought. I later heard that the judge declined my suggestion that she should publish her judgment. No reasons were given.
The approved version of the judgment and the sealed order were only received by the parties in June, and kindly passed on to me last week. I don’t know the reasons for the delay, but hope that the letter went off to the boys shortly after the hearing. I don’t know what was in that letter said or how the children responded, nor how the children’s relationship with their mum is faring, but I hope that things are improving for them all.
*Not their real names.
Lucy Reed is a specialist children barrister. She attended this private hearing as a ‘legal blogger’ and was able to report it under the Open Reporting Provisions now applicable in Family Courts in England & Wales.
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England & Wales run largely by volunteers who also have full-time jobs. We’re working hard to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work within it.
Our legal bloggers take time out at their own expense to attend courts and to write up hearings.
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.
Thanks for reading!