X (A Child acting by her Children's Guardian) v Y
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 2139 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA21P01419 |
| Court | Family Division |
and
[2021] EWHC 2139 (Fam)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: MA21P01419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Shaun Spencer (instructed by AFG Law) for the Applicant
The First Respondent appeared in person
The Second Respondent did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 20 July 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be at 10.30am on 29 July 2021.
This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given permission for this anonymised version of the judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition always that the names and the addresses of the parties and the children must not be published. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and addresses of the parties and the children will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
INTRODUCTION
This application arises out of proceedings under Part II of the Children Act 1989 in respect of X, born in 2017. X has been the subject of private law proceedings in one form or another for the majority of her life. The first set of proceedings concluded in December 2017, with a second set of proceedings thereafter commencing in March 2018 which were concluded on 20 May 2021.
The first respondent father, Y (hereafter the father), is dissatisfied with the outcome of those proceedings. He has chosen to express his dissatisfaction by posting on social media and displaying on his vehicle his views regarding the family justice system. In addition to his views concerning what he considers to be failings in that system, the father has also posted on social media and displayed on his vehicle derogatory comments about the mother, the Children's Guardian, the social worker and the trial judge, accusing them of being “abusers” of children, “dirty little child abusers” and, in one post on social media, suggesting that all employees of Cafcass engage in the practice of bestiality by labelling them “dog shagging nonces”.
Within this context, the Children's Guardian, represented by Mr Shaun Spencer of counsel, applies for injunctive relief preventing the father from continuing with the course of action that I have outlined above. The precise formulation of the application before the court was the subject of some discussion at the outset of the hearing. It is, essentially, in two parts. First, the Children's Guardian seeks injunctive relief preventing the father from publishing material that identifies X as having been the subject of proceedings before the Family Court. Second, the Children's Guardian seeks injunctive relief preventing the father from identifying what Mr Spencer initially characterised as “professionals” involved in the proceedings.
Mr Spencer at first sought to encompass in the term “professionals” the allocated social worker and the trial judge, in addition to the Children's Guardian. However, at the outset of the hearing Mr Spencer also properly conceded that, with respect to the allocated social worker and the trial judge, he was not instructed on their behalf, had had no indication that they sought relief and that no applications for such relief were before the court. Within this context, whilst the concerns I express during the course of this judgment regarding some of the conduct of the father apply to the position of the allocated social worker and the trial judge, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal only with the application that is in fact before the court, namely that with respect to the Children's Guardian.
The application is opposed by the father, who appeared at the final hearing in person and made short and focused submissions to the court. The mother, Z, did not appear and is not represented. Given the issues involved, I reserved judgment and now set out my decision and my reasons for that decision.
THE BACKGROUND
Following the breakdown of the parents' relationship in August 2017, X lived with both parents under a shared child arrangements order made in December 2017. Further proceedings between the parents in respect of X ensued in 2018. In those proceedings, the mother asserted that there were welfare concerns with respect to the father, centred on allegations of illicit drug and alcohol use. In turn, the father raised concerns regarding the mother's new partner and the mental health of the maternal grandfather. During the course of the second set of private law proceedings between the parents in respect of X, the court was required to make an order in April 2018 prohibiting both parents from making derogatory comments about the other on social media. On that date, the court ordered drug and alcohol testing in respect of both parents.
Between December 2017 and June 2018 the father raised a number of concerns with respect to injuries to X. X was examined by a GP on 6 July 2018. The outcome of that examination is unclear from the papers before the court. On 7 July 2018 the father alleged that X exhibited bruising. A general practitioner confirmed the presence of bruising to X and made a referral to social services. The social worker advised that a Child Protection Medical should take place, which was undertaken on 11 July 2018. The examining doctor was not able to provide an opinion on either the cause or the timing of the injury.
At the hearing on 16 July 2018, the father accepted that he had again been posting inappropriate material on Facebook but claimed he had been ‘baited’ by the mother's partner. The court is recorded as issuing a ‘final warning’ to both parties with respect to this conduct. The court continued the child arrangements order made on 12 December 2017 in the interim. The court ordered that a report pursuant to s.7 of the Children Act 1989 be prepared by the local authority and listed the matter for a dispute resolution appointment on 4 October 2018. It is unclear from the papers available to this court what the approach of the court was at this stage to the injuries alleged to have been suffered by X. X was the subject of a further admission to hospital on 25 August 2018, again with bruising noted. On 26 August 2018 a consultant paediatrician expressed the opinion that on the balance of probabilities the bruises were likely to have been inflicted.
The passage of the proceedings following the hearing on 4 October 2018 is opaque but during the period following the discovery of further injuries in August 2018 it is apparent that the court ordered a s.37 report be prepared by the local authority and an expert report. The court also joined an intervener, W, who was considered by both parties to be the potential perpetrator of X's injuries. X was joined as a party to the proceedings. On 29 October 2019 the court ordered that X would continue to live with both parents in the interim pursuant to a shared care arrangement.
Within this context, the matter came before the allocated trial judge on 27 January 2020. On that date the learned Judge had the benefit of the report prepared by the local authority pursuant to s.37 of the Children Act 1989. The local authority confirmed that it did not intend to issue proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 but instead intended to safeguard and promote the welfare of X under a Child in Need plan. At the hearing both parents maintained that the other had caused physical injuries to X. There was a further allegation that the father had posted information concerning the proceedings online. Both parents again agreed not to post material online. The trial judge listed the matter for a final hearing in March 2020, to include the determination of the cross-allegations of physical abuse of X made by each parent and against the intervenor.
The father failed to attend the final hearing in March 2020, having advised the solicitor for the child that he did not intend to attend. The hearing therefore proceeded in the father's absence. It is not clear why the father, who has since heavily criticised the manner in which professionals and the court dealt with his allegations of the physical abuse of X, did not attend the hearing at which those allegations were to be judicially determined. Ahead of the hearing, the father sent a document entitled “child neglect” to the court and to each of the parties and stated that he intended to share the document with the media. The document identified X by reference to the father's identity and X's date of birth. It made a number of derogatory comments about the judge and made allegations of sexism and bias on her part, and in respect of the Children's Guardian. In light of the concern of the Children's Guardian that the s.37 report prepared by the local authority failed to identify the specific work that was to be completed under the Child in Need plan, the trial judge adjourned the proceedings and directed an addendum s.37 report. The court also made an order prohibiting either parent from disclosing information with respect to X or the proceedings.
On 24 March 2021 the father posted on Facebook a form of the statement he had submitted to the court ahead of the final hearing. As I have noted,...
To continue reading
Request your trial