Fazeela Ishmael, instructed by Dawson Cornwell, represented the Respondent Mother over the last 2 years of private children proceedings, during both the fact-finding hearing and final hearing. The Applicant Father sought contact with the parties’ 5-year-old daughter, in the UK and Sweden. The Court ultimately refused the Father’s application, and made orders for no direct contact, monthly indirect contact, and robust Prohibited Steps Orders and Specific Issue Orders including regulating engagement with the child’s school, renewal of the child’s passport, vaccinations and school trips. The Court also made a s91(14) order against the Father for 18 months.
In judgment at final hearing, K v O [2026] EWFC 179 (B), Recorder Peacock highlighted the ‘exceptionally difficult and unusual’ features of this case.
At the fact-finding hearing the Court had made significant findings about the Father’s coercive and controlling behaviour including: pretending to be the Mother via emails to professionals using an email account he created; misleading international authorities by disclosing his amended court order without notice to the Mother’s solicitor or indicating the draft order was disputed and unapproved; initiating concurrent unmeritorious civil proceedings to intimidate and frighten the Mother; and exerting control over communication with third party professionals and regarding contact arrangements. The Court had rejected all of the Father’s allegations of alienation and harm by the Mother.
During the final hearing the Father contended, and it was accepted by the Mother, that the supervised contact reports showed a generally positive and appropriate relationship between the child and her Father. The child had also expressed to Cafcass that she loves her father, enjoys spending time with him, and wished to spend more time with him. It was accepted by the Father, Cafcass, and the Mother that if direct contact were to cease it would likely cause distress and upset to the child.
The Court highlighted that it was striking that the Mother did not seek to downplay the disadvantages of the Court adopting her position of indirect contact only, and that it was clear that she had wrestled with the very difficult dilemma presented before the Court.
Ultimately, the Court made further findings that the Father’s controlling behaviour had continued over the year since the fact-finding hearing. This included pursuing ‘totally misconceived and wholly disproportionate’ applications, such as seeking unsupervised contact just 3 weeks after the fact-finding hearing, and later seeking making an urgent application for a Prohibited Steps Order against the Mother which was then withdrawn during the hearing. Additionally, he engaged in a ‘convoluted approach’ to communication, which included: using different email addresses; not copying in the Mother’s solicitors in correspondence with the Court; and sending a ‘highly unusual barrage of correspondence’. The Father’s communication about the contact arrangements were symptomatic of his inflexible approach. He continually failed to adhere to the court ordered interim contact arrangements, resulting inconsistent contact with the child.
The Court also made findings about the Father’s conduct during the supervised contact sessions which did take place. The Father had showed the child an age-inappropriate video during contact which frightened her, causing considerable upset and distress, and he ignored requests not to do so again. He also persistently applied unspecified cream to the child (who has a skin condition and requires a particular cream), contrary to the advice of the contact centre, and without providing appropriate details of the cream he was using. Further, he continued to inaccurately emphasise, including directly to the child, that she had Swedish heritage.
The Court had directed a psychological assessment of the Father during proceedings, which notwithstanding challenge at final hearing, the Court considered the psychologist to be an impressive witness. The psychologist opined that the Father presented as an ego-centred individual with limited insight as to his own behaviour or the Court’s findings.
In its addendum Section 7 report, Cafcass had recommended for the monthly supervised contact to continue. However, Cafcass revised their recommendation on the first day of the final hearing, recommending indirect contact only, expressing concern about the lack of reflection or change in the Father’s behaviour.
The Court accepted that if the Father’s behaviour continued into the future, it would cause considerable distress to the Mother, and it would undermine her ability to parent the child. Applying Practice Direction 12J, the Court found that it would cause emotional harm to the child, both indirectly because of the effect on her Mother and directly because of some the concerns arising from the contact.
The Court considered this to be an archetypal case for a section 91(14) order, and made such order for a duration of 18 months. Having regard to the findings made, the Court was also satisfied that robust Prohibited Steps Orders and Specific Issue Orders were necessary, including regarding engagement with the child’s school, renewal of the child’s passport, and enabling the Mother to unilaterally make decisions regarding vaccinations of the child and school trips.
