F v M [2025] EWFC 210 (B)
Dr Charlotte Proudman represented a mother in proceedings concerning her 7-year-old daughter, “U,” whose father sought to enforce and expand contact arrangements. The court found F’s applications were “primarily driven” by his need to regularise his immigration status, not by a genuine desire to see U [99]. While he accused M of parental alienation [16], the court accepted that M’s concerns about his motives were reinforced by the timing of his applications and his failure to improve his ability to communicate with U [115]. Background included a single earlier finding that F had unintentionally hurt M when slamming a door during an argument [121], alongside F’s previously dismissed allegations of abuse and trafficking against M in other jurisdictions [48].
During the hearing, professional evidence highlighted M’s vulnerabilities. Dr Hannah Jones, a psychologist, described how M had been coerced in a familial and cultural sense, having met F only on her wedding day [72]. She reported that M had experienced a breakdown after earlier fact-finding proceedings, having had little agency in her personal life or within the court process [73]. Cafcass adviser, Ms Jennifer Lomas accepted during my cross-examination that there was an urgent need to end proceedings and that immediate re-litigation would risk harm to U and M [59]. Ms Lomas further accepted that F’s late attempt to seek a change of residence was neither child-focused nor appropriate, given his lack of any meaningful relationship with U [60].
The court concluded that M had a reasonable excuse for not facilitating contact beyond the order’s scope, given the harassing correspondence sent by F and his solicitors [125]. The judge ordered that contact be limited to indirect exchanges six times per year [158(i)], imposed a five-year Prohibited Steps Order preventing F from attending U’s school or removing her from M’s care [158(ii)], and made a section 91(14) order barring further applications without permission for five years [158(iii)].
Read the full case here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/210
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
