In a recent family Court case, the Judge made a significant decision to halt a mother’s legal efforts to reconnect with her four children, aged 9 to 14, who have refused to see her for several years. The case highlights the complexities of family law, particularly when it comes to balancing the desires of parents with the children’s welfare.
Mother v Father [2024] EWFC 252 (B) (14 August 2024)
Case background
The mother, who had not seen her children since 2018, sought to re-establish contact through the Family Courts.
However, the children, who have been living with their father since 2016, expressed a strong desire to stop being “bothered” by Court proceedings and adults checking in on them.
The children had previously rejected emails, gifts, and videos from their mother. One child told a welfare officer they “feel frustrated our mum is bothering us and taking us away from [a] happy life with our dad.” Another said that the mother “keeps disturbing our peace.”
Her Honour Judge Suh acknowledged the mother’s genuine desire to be part of her children’s lives but emphasised that the children’s need for peace and emotional recovery must come first.
Decision
Her Honour Judge Suh made an order preventing the mother from making any further applications to spend time with the children for the next three years.
In a heartfelt letter to the children, the Judge explained that this decision was made to give them a break from the ongoing legal battles and to respect their wishes.
The Judge’s letter conveyed empathy and understanding, recognising both the mother’s pain and the children’s need for stability:
‘I heard loud and clear that you do not want to see your Mum and you want people to stop bothering you. I take what you say seriously. I respect your views. Your welfare is my number one concern.’
The Judge suggested that the mother send a monthly email to a bespoke address, which the children could choose to read or ignore. This form of communication would be “like a bridge towards a relationship with her if you want. It is up to you whether you cross that bridge.”
Ending the letter, the Judge added:
“You only ever get one Mum in your life. She loves you all so very much and misses a relationship with you greatly. She has had a difficult time and things have not been easy for her. ‘Well, things have not been easy for us’, you might say. You are right. Both of those things are true.
“But I want you to know that you are loved by your Mum. She is not perfect. None of us are. But you should know that she came to court not to upset you but because she genuinely does not want to lose the possibility of a relationship with you. I am clear that the choice of whether you want that relationship to develop, and when, is yours.”
An earlier judgment by Her Honour Judge Atkinson identified the central issue as whether the mother could commit to regular contact and whether she was experiencing mental health problems.
The Court heard that at one point, she failed to attend three consecutive hearings.
Judge Suh commended both parents for their “real courage” in coming to Court and answering questions, noting they had done so with “great dignity” and a clear desire to assist in making the right decision.
She stated that a three-year order was “proportionate and necessary” to allow the children to develop and mature, while still leaving open the possibility of a future relationship. She added that the older children would have a “degree of respite” from legal proceedings until they turned 16.
“Their welfare is the golden thread which has been woven into this judgment, and I hope they understand that I have done my very best to put their welfare first,” the Judge concluded.
The importance of children’s welfare
This case underscores a fundamental principle in family law: the welfare of the child is paramount.
The Children Act 1989 mandates that a child’s welfare is the court’s primary consideration when making decisions about their upbringing.
Judge Suh’s decision reflects this principle, prioritising the children’s emotional well-being over the mother’s desire for contact.
A balanced approach
While the Judge’s decision may seem harsh, it is a balanced approach that considers the long-term welfare of the children.
The Judge offered a compromise by allowing the mother to send monthly emails to a bespoke address, which the children could choose to read or ignore.
This approach provides a potential pathway for future reconciliation without forcing the children into unwanted contact.
The role of mental health
The case also highlights the role of mental health in family law disputes. The Court heard that the mother had faced mental health challenges, which had impacted her ability to maintain regular contact with her children.
This aspect of the case emphasises the need for a holistic approach to family law, considering not just the legal aspects but also the psychological and emotional factors at play.
Conclusion
Judge Suh’s decision to halt the mother’s Court action is a poignant example of the delicate balance family courts must strike between the desires of parents and the welfare of children.
By prioritising the children’s need for peace and emotional recovery, the Judge has set a precedent that underscores the paramount importance of children’s welfare in family law.
How we can help
Rina Mistry is a Senior Associate in our Family Law team, advising on a wide range of family law work, and in particular specialising in private children’s law, children matters and domestic abuse.
At Nelsons, we understand the emotional and legal challenges that come with family disputes. Our team of experienced family law solicitors is here to provide compassionate and expert advice, helping you navigate these difficult times.
If you need any advice concerning the subjects discussed above, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss your circumstances in more detail and give you more information about the services that our solicitors can provide along with details of our hourly rates.
For more information or advice, please call Rina or another member of our team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal/financial advice. Please contact us for advice tailored to your specific position. Some of the content presented on our website has been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We ensure that all AI-generated content meets our high standards for accuracy and relevance.
