Cambridge Family Law Practice

At a recent family court hearing, a judge honoured the wishes of four siblings not to see their mother for the foreseeable future.

The case in question was heard in the East London Family Court by Her Honour Judge Suh. She referred to the children as B, C, D and E in her published ruling. The children are now aged 14, 13, 11 and nine. They live with their father and have a fraught relationship with their mother.

The siblings had begun to resist her efforts to re-establish contact with their mother, eventually refusing to see her at all after years of back-and-forth legal proceedings.

Judge Suh explained the children’s welfare was her “number one concern”. She acknowledged the mother’s genuine desire to rebuild a relationship with her offspring and noted that their father was supportive of this happening.

However, the Judge continued:

“The children’s wishes and feelings are very clear and powerful. They do not want to see their mother and they do not want to speak to any more adults about her. The children, particularly the older two have had a difficult start in life and they suffered harm in their mother’s care.”

The children had lived with their father for eight years and during that time the mother’s visits had become increasingly patchy and inconsistent. She had problems with her mental health and this lay behind a pattern of repeatedly moving home. In the words of Judge Suh:

“The mother’s mental health goes up and down and she has moved around a lot so it is hard to know what her diagnosis is or how well managed her mental health is. That is important because she needs to be well enough to build a predictable and consistent relationship with the children. She has conducted herself in court with great dignity and is open to further therapeutic help. That is greatly to her credit.”

The mother had made repeated efforts with B, C, D and E, sending gifts, emails and videos, but they had not responded well. The Judge therefore believed it would be:

“…harmful to force the children to see their mother face-to-face when they are hostile to it and we have yet to establish a good rapport by email. I think it would backfire and undermine the chance of building a relationship in future.”

The mother would be allowed to continue emailing the children each month, Judge Suh ruled, but she would not be allowed to make any new court applications for a period of three years without the court’s permission.

“The children’s welfare means, I think they need a break from adults coming to check on them and from court applications. I think something needs to change before the mother is allowed to start new court proceedings.”

Judge Suh wrote to the children to explain her decision, telling them:

“…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.”

Emma Wager, Senior Associate here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, comments:

“This case vividly illustrates the degree to which family court judges can and sometimes do listen to children involved in court matters, and make a real effort to respect their wishes whenever such children are mature enough to have clear views on their situation.

It is always a shame to see when family relationships deteriorate following a separation and it can be very difficult for any children involved. This case shows that it is so important to really listen to the voice of the children in order to move forward and hopefully rebuild those relationships in the future.”

The full ruling is available here.