This was one of the first transparency order cases in private law children proceedings in Carlisle Family Court.
First, the trial judge made a final order for child contact between the father and the child despite the mother’s allegations of rape and abuse. The father and Cafcass children’s guardian had alleged parental alienation against the mother and asserted there were no safeguarding concerns posed by the father. The mother had no participation measures at the final hearing.
Second, Dr Charlotte Proudman successfully represented the mother at an appeal hearing due to the mother not having participation directions such as a screen to prevent her from seeing her alleged rapist when she gave oral evidence (see Part 3A and PD3AA FPR 2010) and failing to consider the mother’s allegations of rape and wider patterns of abuse (see, CM v IP [2022] EWHC 2755 (Fam)). The judgment was set aside.
Third, Dr Proudman represented the mother at a retrial before His Honour Judge Baker where the father alleged parental alienation and the mother alleged abuse (see, DG v KB [2023] EWFC 180). The mother’s allegations of rape and other forms of abuse including to the child were found to be true. Long read article here. Guardian report here.
Finally, at a welfare final hearing, Dr Proudman successfully represented the mother in her applications to terminate the father’s parental responsibility, change the child’s surname to the mother’s surname only, a section 91(14) order until the child turns 16 and for the father to pay the mother £30,000 in costs. The judge held that it was not necessary for the mother to undergo a psychological assessment to prove the impact of rape and domestic abuse upon her, as it would be obvious that rape would cause long-lasting psychological harm. Long read article here.
The judge referred to any contact with a rapist father as court-sanctioned abuse.
“The overall picture, which now includes the father’s reflections upon the matters dealt with at the fact-finding hearing is one that leads me to conclude that the father’s continued involvement in the child’s life would be, for the foreseeable future, continued court-sanctioned abuse of the mother.” [68]
Journalist, Hannah Summers covered the case in the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, noting the mother’s relief, the previous case history, and the transparency order. She writes, “The mother, who was accused of “parental alienation” by her ex, said she felt “huge relief” at finally being listened to. Her allegation of rape had originally been put to the family court in 2021 and dismissed in error before the case was re-heard on appeal. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) first reported on the case in October after overturning an embargo on a transparency order issued under a family court reporting pilot.”
Dr Proudman represented the mother prior, CM v IP [2022] EWHC 2755 (Fam) was the first time, at an appeal hearing before Mrs Justice Morgan, and in DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child)) (Rev1) [2023] EWFC 180 (21 September 2023) at the retrial before His Honour Judge Baker.
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
Related practice areas: Family
