X and Y (Children : Final judgment) [2016] EWFC B118 (11 November 2016)

See [2017] EWFC B117

JUDGE MAYER:

1 Child X is now nine years old. His sister Child Y is seven, eight in January 2017. This is the final judgment in the case which started some 15 months ago. My judgments of 25 February 2016 and 1 March 2016 must be read as precursors to this judgment. The detail of my judgment of 25 February is as important now as it was eight months ago. At the hearing of 1 March, I said in para.14:

“What I found so totally incomprehensible is that, knowing what the mother did to the children and the lies she has told the father, on his account in respect of what was happening with the children for years, he was still prepared to contemplate continued cohabitation. The guardian’s view of this is that he has throughout prioritised the mother’s needs over his children’s needs and still does.” I agree with this analysis.

2 I said he had a long journey ahead of him. After the hearing in March, the children were removed into foster care. They remain in the same placement and I am told that Y in particular has a good relationship with the foster mother. An assessment of the mother and the father was carried out firstly by Dr. Gwen Adshead, the forensic psychiatrist specialising in FII. In respect of the mother, in her report dated 16 April, she said this:

“In my view, there is evidence that the mother’s condition meets criteria for somatic symptom disorder, SSD, as defined in the diagnostic and statistical manual, DSM, Version 5. Factitious disorder is a related diagnosis and involves the use of deception. In my view, there is evidence that the mother also meets criteria for factitious disorder. The modus for deception need not always be monitoring. Somatic symptoms disorder in mothers is associated with indirect harm to children because children are at increased risk of developing somatic disorders themselves. There is good quality research evidence that there can be transmission of health anxiety across generations and that mothers with health anxieties tend to have children who also express anxiety physically. Factitious disorder combined with SSD can be associated with an increased risk of direct harm to children. Because of the impact on the interactions between adults with FD/SSD and health care professionals on behalf of the child, a crucial aspect of parenting is care eliciting on their behalf with identified health care professionals. If this is deceptive or abnormal, then this can cause harm to the child in terms of unnecessary investigations and treatments and the installation of abnormal health beliefs in the child. In my view, the mother shows limited insight into her problems. She says she accepts that there have been parenting issues that may explain the children’s difficulties, but she denies that she has physically harmed the children in any way. I do not think she accepts that the children do not have significant disabilities. However, in my experience, this is not unusual. It often takes time for parents with this sort of problem to be able to think about alternative explanations, especially if they are ones that make them feel ashamed and anxious. It is really not possible to comment on the prognosis of therapy before there has been any engagement or a provision of opportunity to engage. The mother has engaged in therapy before, but I am aware that she might wait some time for the right specialist therapy and any engagement and progress is likely to be slow to start. Positive signs of change would include some acceptance of the findings and professional concerns and a wish to repair the relationship with the children. Without therapy, the risk of abnormal illness behaviour on behalf of the children is likely to continue, especially if the mother is supported in her narrative by her husband and family”.

3 In respect of the father, she reported on 15 May. She did not find that the father suffered from any mental health problems.

“He was only in partial agreement with my findings. He thought that the mother always told the truth”.

4 How he could have thought that in the light of what she did to him was not probed by Dr. Adshead. She considered him a highly independent and resourceful individual who was happiest with relationships that has built in distance. She said that he valued his relationship with mother and found it difficult to accept that she harmed the children. In my judgment, she accepted the father’s account prima facie and considered that he did not accept the findings due to his independent thinking, rather than his relationship with the mother. Dr. Adshead was not asked to give evidence. I wonder what she would have said had she known the current situation.

5 The local authority proposed an assessment by the Anna Freud Institute to see whether there is any room for rehabilitation of the children to their parents. Dr. Asen is a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist with vast experience in assessment and treatment of more than 1,000 abused and neglected children and their families. Dr. Morris, who co-worked this case, is a clinical psychologist with ten years’ experience of inter alia specialist parenting assessments. They have been appointed to carry out the assessment in respect of the children’s future welfare.

6 Between 21 April and 4 June, there have been a number of meetings between the assessors, the children and the father as well as observed contacts between the parents and the children. The meetings are accurately listed in Ms. Markham’s helpful chronology which was agreed between the parties and which I adopt and incorporate into this judgment.

7 On 6 June, the doctors reported. They acknowledged that both parents had many good parenting skills and qualities, that the mother was seeking to address her own personal issues via psychotherapy and that she was reflecting on her past harmful actions in relation to the children. It was however their view that the mother continues to pose significant risks of harming both X and Y during unsupervised contact or if they are placed in her care. They could therefore not support X and Y’s placement with their mother, no matter whether she was in the role of primary or secondary carer.

8 It was also their opinion that the father would not be able to provide safe and appropriate care for the children at all times if the children were to live in the same household with both parents. He was evidently influenced by the mother and the maternal grandmother and there were concerns about X’s health when he lived in the family home in 2015. He was not able to protect X from attending further medical appointments.

9 They have gone on to consider the possibility of the children being cared for by the father alone. Were the father to engage in therapy with them over a period of four to six months, he might be able to safely parent the children. They proposed a plan divided into three phases where, at the end of each phase, a report would be provided to the parties and to the court. It would be only on completion of all the phases that a final assessment of the father’s ability to parent safely would be conducted.

10 A professionals’ meeting took place at the Anna Freud Institute on 13 June. Dr. Adshead attended by telephone, Dr. Asen in person, and a number of social workers and team managers from the local authority, the local authority solicitor and the guardian. The plan was discussed and scrutinised. The local authority decided to accept it and to fund it.

11 A further hearing took place before me on 24 June. I gave directions about the therapy plan on the basis that the father would be a sole carer. In addition to all her previous lies, the mother alleged through her counsel at this hearing that the father had an alcohol problem. She retracted this in a statement of 6 July. She said it was said in the heat of the moment.

12 Phase one of the proposed plan started on 29 June and concluded on 19 July, which was also the date of the report of the first phase. It included four sessions with the father. In the third session on 13 July, the therapist went with the father through the report of Dr Adshead about the mother, which he said he had not read at that stage, although the opening paragraph of his seventh statement says in terms that he had. In response to what the report says, he said:

“… that the children’s mother lied a lot from the very beginning we met. She told lies all the time, silly lies. I wanted to reform her to stop her from telling silly lies. Her own mother told lies and she continues to tell lies all the time.

The father said that his wife’s lying got better over the years. The father then asked questions so as to understand better the diagnosis Dr Adshead has made. He said that the children’s mother does not trust anyone. She does not want people to get close to her. She does not have close friends.

Overall, the father showed a good reflecting ability, particularly when thinking about possible intergenerational transmission of health patterns and anxieties and the ability to tell the truth”.

13 The next hearing took place on 13 July. Dr Asen reported about progress in that hearing. The mother, having heard the cautiously optimistic evidence of Dr Asen, agreed a gradual reduction of her contact so that, by the end of October, it would take place once a month. It was agreed that the local authority would provide a new agreement between the parents which would deal with building up a distance between them. The next phase was timetabled.

14 It was also agreed that a child friendly note of the judgment would be prepared by Dr Asen and the guardian so as to explain to the children the harm they had suffered. Dr Asen was to be the final arbiter of the wording. The children were to be told about the progress of the case and, if progress continued, a further hearing, at that stage tentatively listed for 4 August, will not be necessary. Dr Asen would provide an interim report and move on to stage three.

15 In the spirit of optimism, the final hearing was listed for one day on 11 November. That is today. I am satisfied that, at that stage, it was anticipated that the father’s progress would continue and that the case would finish with a consent order.

16 Following the hearing and the agreement through counsel, the parents have been asked to sign a contract of expectations sent to them on 19 July. The contract stated that the parents shall separate and lead completely separate lives. There should be no telephone contact until Dr Asen recommends some limited contact. The mother was not to contact the father, even in a case of emergency. The parents refused to sign the document. The mother in evidence said that she felt like a child and that the local authority wanted to control her life. She said her word was good enough. I think she still does not understand why she is not easily believed by the local authority.

17 The first draft of the child friendly judgment was prepared on 15 July. The draft is on p.E114. I do not repeat it. The father opposed the word “big” in the opening line which read, “Mum has a big problem”. Dr Asen refused to make the change.

18 The first full session of phase two took place on 25 July, the second on 29 July. At the third session on 25 August, the father outlined his difficulties with the therapy. He said he had difficulty sleeping, found the whole process very stressful and he missed not talking to the mother. A discussion took place as to how he was going to explain to the children what has happened to them. Dr. Asen was under the impression that, despite the declared difficulties, the father was preparing himself for providing the children with the correct narrative in a child focused and sensitive manner.

19 The report regarding phase two is dated 3 August. It was positive overall, although towards the end there are hints at a few cracks in the programme. It was clear that the next phase consisted of the father explaining to the children, through a narrative which was in line with my findings, what has happened to them. It was anticipated that this work would last some six weeks and both the father’s approach and the children’s responses would be systematically evaluated.

20 On 8 August, the father went to Africa to visit his older children. He was away for two weeks. The first session of the third phase took place on 7 September. I describe it in full.

“Dr Asen sat down with them and X immediately said he did not want to spend Christmas in foster care. When asked what they had been told about why they were in care, X replied, ‘Nothing’. Y immediately corrected him and said, ‘Yes. The guardian said that our mum told lies’. X uttered, ‘Oh, yes. The guardian said that our mum has some mind problem’. When asked whether their father could explain to them what the mind problem was, there was a marked hesitation on the father’s part. X clearly sensed this and rescued his father by stating that he needed to go to the toilet. The father used the situation and asked to speak to Dr Asen on his own. He explained that he finds it very difficult to talk to the children about their mother’s mind problem.

After returning to the room where both children were waiting, X turned to his father and asked, ‘Is it about the mind stuff?’ His father was evasive and replied, ‘I don’t know’. X repeated that he wanted to be at home at Christmas, even if it is only for a few days, and he could go back to foster care if there were some big problems. When asked by Dr Asen what he thought his mother’s mind problem was, X replied, ‘Sometimes she worries about our health, like my knee, but it isn’t bad. I could have done without the wheelchair. Mummy and daddy knew how I would snake around in the house. I didn’t need a wheelchair in our house’. When asked by Dr Asen why it was a bad thing to have a mummy who worries too much about her kids, X replied, ‘Because if your arm is in plaster the muscles get weak and you cannot use it’”.

21 The father took a back seat and was totally unable to proceed along the line of the proposed script, even though I am entirely satisfied that X offered him the opportunity to do so. I accept that the remainder of the contact was positive play in the garden, not before the father explaining how difficult it was for him. The father informed Dr Asen that he would not be able to attend the next session due to work commitments.

22 On 21 September, the date for yet another session, the father sent Dr Asen an email. The email stated that the father had been seriously thinking about the practicalities of looking after the children on his own, without being able to work full-time and be able to provide for his children here in England and in Nigeria. He was worried about losing the roof over his head, as he would not be able to claim housing benefit for a mortgaged property. He said he was worried about the financial practicalities. He did not have financial backing, apart from his own work. He found it difficult to tell the children something at the last session with Dr Asen. His conscience would not allow him to say something to his children. He added that he hoped that Dr Asen understood his feelings.

23 On 23 September, there was a particularly emotional contact with the father. It was his birthday. The children prepared cards, called him their special daddy, X, and stroked his face gently saying, “It’s like home, Y”. The father knew by then that he was withdrawing from the therapy. The children did not.

24 On 27 September, Dr Asen received an email from the solicitor for the local authority with formal notification that the father had withdrawn from the therapy and the assessment. On 12 October, the father met with the social worker, said he wanted to be a sole carer and wanted the mother to have a role in their lives. On 14 October, the parents apparently formally resumed their contact. On 16 October, the mother informed the social worker that she wanted to co-parent with the father. On 20 October, the father contacted the social worker and said that his plan was that the mother would live with him and the children once she successfully completed her therapy. He wanted the children to have frequent contact with her whilst they were living with him.

25 On 21 October, the father sent the social worker an email confirming that his main intention is to get the children home soon as possible, with him and the mother co-caring. He said that the hell the family went through started with the involvement of social services. The parents signed a statement each, each expressing the wish to care for the children jointly.

26 At the hearing, which took two days, I heard evidence from Dr. Asen, the social worker, Miss McNorton, the parents and the guardian. I notified the parties of my decision at the end of submissions, informing them that I would be making a full care order in respect of both children, approving a care plan for long-term foster care with seven direct and five indirect contacts per annum to the parents, the direct contact to take place jointly, subject to constant review and the discretion of the local authority. The contact is not to be subject to an order, but rather to a preamble.

27 Although the issues are rather narrow, I have expanded on the chronology and summarised the evidence in some detail. I write in this judgment that the children, when they reach 18 and are allowed to have access to my judgments, understand the full reasoning behind my decision. I understand that the guardian and the social worker will be visiting them after my judgment to explain my decision in terms that they can understand now.

28 Dr Asen’s evidence was very clear. The mother continues to pose a risk to the children, not just because of the physical aspect issue but because of her own issue under SSD. Dr. Adshead said the children of parents with SSD are much more susceptible to developing the syndrome themselves. I pause to say that the guardian told me that, from the accounts of the foster carer, the children are highly sensitised to medical issues.

29 The mother has not yet accessed therapy for FII, although it is commendable that she has accessed therapy which is probably helpful and she perseveres and funds it. She has a long way to go. Having heard the mother’s evidence, I entirely accept his opinion. He explained that he could not understand the nature of the parents’ enmeshed, interdependent relationship. The father has ultimately not been able to recognise the real risks the mother continues to pose to the children. For reasons which are not clear to anybody involved in this case, the father continues to wish remaining with the mother despite what she has done to him, let alone to their children. Dr Asen did not hear the father’s evidence in respect of the blame he attributed to the doctors for putting his children in plaster. Had he done so, his opinion may well have been even stronger.

30 Having been told that the father said to the social worker that the whole family had been through hell since the intervention by the local authority, he considered that the children, if they were to go home to him and the mother, would receive a totally conflicting and contradictory understanding of what has happened and why they were in care. Again, he did not hear the elaboration of the mother on this topic. She said in her evidence that it was the social worker’s decision in the meeting, when he announced, “We will take you to court” which was responsible for all the upheavals in this family and for the children ending up in care.

31 Dr Asen accepted that the children love the father and he loves them. He maintained from the beginning of his involvement in this case that the children had some good parenting. The father’s contact with the children has been very good throughout. However, Dr Asen opined that, if he were with the mother, his judgment would be clouded. She would be a major risk and he would not be able to stand up to her. He accepted that, if he were a genuine sole carer, the father might have managed. The assessment was progressing positively until the father had to deal with the issues about the mother. Dr. Asen was aware of the vicissitudes of the care system, of the fact that there is no identified foster placement and that the children are likely to be very upset, although he did not think that X in particular was not prepared for the possibility of remaining in care.

32 He also thought that the children were resilient and considered that they will settle. There was no question for him as to where the balance of harm lay. He explained that, if contact was more frequent than six to seven times a year, the children might build up false hopes. They primarily hoped to go home. They have to understand that this is not going to happen. They should not be told that this is not going to happen for the time being, the emphasis being on “for the time being”. Both the parents have a lot of work to do before they can consider applying to discharge the care order, if ever. Dr. Asen accepted, when cross-examined by the guardian, that the father has sacrificed his children to continue his relationship with the mother due to his intense dependency on her. He has justified his choice by his sense of Christian forgiveness, by which I understood that he had forgiven the mother. Alas, this is not a case about forgiveness. It is about risk and risk management.

33 I turn to the rest of the evidence. The social worker told me that there had been 29 families who enquired about long-term fostering of the children, just initial stage enquiries, which started a month ago. She considered it a high number. She described Y as doing well, having friends and progressing with her reading. She continues having difficulty with wetting. It is something which is going to be checked in depth once she is in a permanent placement. X is clever, doing well academically, but can be angry at times. He understands that neither his mum nor his dad may end up looking after him.

34 That said, the social worker acknowledged that both children want to go home. She also acknowledged that it is not clear whether the children can stay at the same school and in the same neighbourhood. The local authority’s overriding concern in searching for a family is the quality of the foster placement. She said that she had no doubt that the children would settle over time. She and the guardian would explain to the children the outcome of the proceedings. They will have to explain that the father realised that he could not manage to care for them because of practical difficulties. They will be told gradually of his choice to stop the therapy and avoid the final assessment.

35 I turn to the evidence of the parents. I take it shortly. I accept that the mother is making efforts to deal with her complex, long-standing and entrenched issues. I am not sure if she understands that she has a long way to go. She has an appointment on 29 November with the Barnet Complex Care Team to see what other help she needs. When giving evidence about it, she added, “if any”. I hope she expresses a positive attitude to access the help recommended by Dr Adshead.

36 In her evidence about her therapy, she spoke a lot of herself, of how she is being helped to understand her dysfunctional childhood and being parented poorly. She kept returning to her trauma when raped, I believe in Turkey. It is clear to me that her therapist is aware of her personal issues which go back many years and is working with her on these. The mother also said that her therapist is helping her to be a better parent. She did not give much detail about this. She told me that she accepts all my findings, except the one of deliberate harm to X’s leg and Y’s wrist, not realising perhaps that I did not actually make the finding about Y’s wrist.

37 She has never detailed, in my view, what exactly it is that she accepts. She talked about anxiety, exaggeration and misunderstandings, although I note that in the last statement she also mentioned lies. She did not voice, in my judgment, acceptance that her lies to professionals were consistent and constant, in complete disregard for her children’s health needs. Perhaps this is an aspect on which more therapeutic help is needed.

38 When asked which part of my judgment the father did not accept, for he has said that he accepts it 70 to 80 per cent, she could not say. This I found difficult to understand. I cannot believe that the parents did not discuss the judgment between February and July, when they were supposed to stop communicating, or perhaps I should not find it difficult to believe.

39 Having accepted in July to bow out of the father’s and the children’s lives to the extent I have dealt with, she could not see, in my judgment, why co-parenting at this stage was out of the question, at this stage or perhaps ever.

40 The father’s evidence was equally difficult to understand. Although in submissions Mr. Cassidy said that the father is applying to care for the children either on his own or with the mother, the clear message to the social worker and indeed in his statement was that he was looking to parent with the mother, live together and share their functions. He explained that the reason he could not tell the children about the mother’s mental health issues was that he did not think she was mad or a psycho. When asked why he used this terminology, he said that to him it represented the stereotype of people with mental health difficulties. He did not want to put the mother in that category.

41 He explained that he could not combine what you read in the judgment with the good, loving, caring mother he knows. He does not accept part of my findings. For example, the reason the children were in plaster for as long and as often, in X’s case, as they were. He could not say to X that his mother was responsible for him being in a wheelchair. He considered that it was the doctor’s fault for putting his children in plaster without x-raying them, especially Y.

42 I took him to the part of my judgment which deals with Y’s time in a wheelchair. The judgment is very clear about how the mother lied, lied and lied again so as to achieve having Y in a sling and how she chose to put Y in a wheelchair instead of a buggy. He looked a bit shaken and said he did not remember this part. He sought to say that in August the practicalities of care combined with the pressure of therapy got on top of him. He had not sought to discuss the practicalities with the social worker to see what help he could receive in the day to day care. Members of his family who he said would help would not discuss anything with the social worker either. All of them are averse to having anything to do with social services. This is of course knowing that the alternative to the children coming back to the father is that they would remain in care.

43 I accept that the father had a difficult time in August. I also find that, between September to date, he has not sought to change his mind, revert to therapeutic input or ask for any other help.

44 I turn finally to the evidence of the guardian. Jackie Anderson did a lot of work in this part of the case. She is a very experienced and wise guardian. She saw the children on seven occasions between February and this hearing, twice so as to observe contact and once so as to inform them about their removal into foster care. She will be the one, together with the social worker, to tell them about the outcome of this hearing and my decision.

45 She prepared a final analysis dated 4 November. She told me that she intends to tell the children that their father did not fully understand the mother’s difficulties and therefore will not be able to protect them. Her view was that the parents do not accept my judgment. It would therefore be difficult to involve them in telling the children that they will remain in long-term foster care. She explained that she was absolutely convinced, her words, that the children could not go back. She formed her own view, independent of that of Dr Asen, of the totally enmeshed relationship between the parents. She told me that both children want to go home and have never wavered from this wish. She accepted that X would be more upset than Y. Y is very young and does not fully understand the concept of long-term. However, she said that X has some understanding why he is in care. I accept her view and remind myself of X’s account, to which I referred earlier.

46 She told me that the children are already emotionally harmed and the foster carer told her that they are preoccupied with health issues. She said that they needed skilled and devoted foster carers. It was put to her on behalf of the father that she did not carry out the balance of harm assessment in her final analysis. Her reply was that, since the risk of returning the children to either parent is so high, the balance is simple. Returning of them is simply unacceptable. Therefore, she looks at the next available option. No suitable member of the family was available. Therefore, it had to be a care order.

Discussion

47 I have to have in the forefront of my mind the welfare of X and Y as my paramount consideration. S.1(3) of the Children Act offers the guidelines for considering all the factors relevant to welfare. It is known as the welfare checklist. I also remind myself that both children and their parents have a right to family life, so long as this does not conflict with their welfare.

48 I confess that, having heard the parents’ evidence, I felt as if eight months had not elapsed since my judgment. Having read about the progress the father has made during the first two phases of his therapy with Doctors Asen and Morris, I was reasonably optimistic about his progress, particularly in respect of his understanding of the harm caused by the mother, not through just anxiety and exaggeration but through lies and deception, not only with schools and the medical profession, but vis a vis him too. I had hoped that that he would understand that, but for the involvement of the local authority, however late, the harm to the children and the lies to the Disability Living Allowance tribunals would have continued. Instead, he considers that the family’s hell started with the involvement of the local authority.

49 Having heard the mother’s view about this, I am satisfied that this is something which has been discussed between them and it is a view which is jointly held. For the father, after everything he has been through in some six or seven sessions of therapy, to propose to parent the children with the mother is simply astounding.

50 I make no findings about how much communication the parents have had between July and October and how the mother came to be in his house in Luton on the day when Aunt J had asked them to clear a garage and then texted him to say that the mother has been hospitalised; although I find the coincidence quite remarkable.

51 In my judgment, these findings are not necessary. The father has pinned his colours to the mast. He abandoned the therapy knowing, as he must have done, that, by doing this, he would jeopardise the children’s opportunity to be cared for by him. He chose to propose a plan of co-parenting with the mother, which he must have known would be unacceptable. The mother told me that, when she found out about him having stopped the therapy, she did not ask why and did not seek to persuade him to continue. She took the view that he was a grown-up and knew what he was doing.

52 In a way, the decision of the parents to stop the road to possible rehabilitation of the children to the father is a joint decision. The father tried to suggest that his motives were practicalities. I reject that explanation. He never sought to discuss with the local authority what practical help he could be offered in order to be able to both care for the children and support them financially. His withdrawal from therapy and the assessment was, in my judgment, his inability to keep separated from the mother. The fondness for her which he demonstrated when he spoke to Dr Adshead about her appears to have prevailed, despite everything that he has learned since.

53 Sadly, no member of the father’s family - although he is one of seven siblings - was able to offer alternative care or indeed discuss with the social worker any help they could offer the father. Those in the mother’s family who offered to care for the children had negative assessments, which were never challenged.

54 The balance of harm in this case is intertwined with the balance of risk. I accept that, at contact, both parents behaved well, that the children love them and that they love the children. I accept that, in the ten months before the children were removed, there has been a significant reduction in their presentation to hospitals. However, I am only too aware of not only the visit to Professor G but the subterfuge surrounding it. In my judgment, there is no real evidence that this would have changed. I accept Dr Asen’s opinion that the father would not be able to stand up to the mother.

55 In my judgment, the equation in this case is straightforward. X and Y cannot be cared for by their parents. There are no safeguards which could be put in place, certainly not before the mother has been assessed to have successfully completed her therapy and the father has done some additional safeguarding work. In those circumstances, I have to consider the alternatives.

56 Long-term fostering carries inbuilt risks. It does not guarantee permanency. The finding of a skilful and devoted family is a tough task. The wishes and feelings of the children are clear and will have to be dealt with sensitively, both by the social worker and the foster carers. The reduction in contact will no doubt upset the children, at least at first. The children may have to change school and lose their friends.

57 I was pleased to hear that both Dr. Asen and the guardian considered them to have developed a degree of resilience. I nevertheless do not underestimate the difficulties they will face in the short and perhaps medium-term. Hopefully, this will be ameliorated when they have a better understanding of why they are in care.

58 Having dealt with the balance of harm, I make a care order to the local authority and deal with the contact as I have indicated at the beginning of this judgment. I have been told that the children may wish to see me. I am of course content to see them at any time which their social worker and guardian think appropriate.

__________

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> X and Y (Children : Final judgment) [2016] EWFC B118 (11 November 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B118.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B118

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)