Thinking of Jay ...
I detest reading family court judgements. I read them; all of them that involve children. But I often come away thinking “what about the child?” The dry legalese provides a heavy veil which obscures my window into the child’s world. Yet for me this is all about the child - the child’s life, the child’s welfare, the child’s experiences. When instructed to give my opinion in proceedings, I hope I help to lift that heavy veil …
While instructed as an independent, impartial, objective professional - this does not strip me of my humanity, care and compassion. I came into this work, as a counselling psychologist, because I cared about children and the adults they become. I do not leave this part of me at home just because my “instructions” come from the court.
In the therapy space I seek to understand distress, turmoil - the reality from the perspective of the person sat with me. I seek to help them understand how they function - engage in life, relate to others, respond to threat. In helping them to heal, or change, I may well challenge their reality - their thoughts, opinions and strongly held beliefs. I tread that line between validating their experience and strengths, and helping them recognise their helpful, and unhelpful, coping strategies. Sometimes this includes supporting them to critically evaluate “evidence” or challenge their assumptions. Any one person’s reality rarely equates with an objective truth …
In the legal setting, I am aided by volumes of additional information which better help me to understand the distance, sometimes a chasm, between someone’s deeply held reality and objective fact and truth. I take all that information from medical records, school records, Local Authority and police disclosures. I speak with, play with and watch a child - at school, with mum, with dad or with other caregivers. I talk to teachers and social workers and parents and significant others. I take all of this information and do my best to understand and convey that child’s world - to paint a picture far more vivid than their expressed views alone - and place it firmly under the nose of those who have the responsibility to make decisions for that child.
When I read a judgement, there is a similar internal process at play in my head, though with far less information. Sometimes, I put pen to paper. This helps me to lift that veil and envisage that child (or parent), to stand alongside them - to be in their world …
This is Jay … a child whose dad asked the court to help them spend time together … A picture painted from two published court judgements [2022] EWFC 92 and [2023] EWFC 35
Jay was born in 2016. He is now six or seven years old. He lived with his mum and older half sister, and his dad played an active and significant role in his early upbringing, as did the paternal family. Jay’s parents relationship had ceased to be at the time of Jay’s birth. His mum did not name Jay’s dad on the birth certificate.
When Jay was four years old, he was isolated from his dad and wider family. His mum prevented Jay from spending time with them. In December 2020, his dad had asked his mum for Parental Responsibility for Jay, so that his meaningful role in his life could be formalised. If Jay’s dad had been named on the birth certificate, this would have already been in place. Jay’s mum told his dad that he may not – in fact – be Jay’s biological father. She told the GP that Jay had been sexually abused by his father. When investigated, no evidence was found and dad was deemed to pose no risk to Jay. Jay last saw his dad in January 2021, when he was taken out of his school, away from family and friends, and suddenly moved 250 miles away - from Kent to Manchester - by his mum.
***
How did Jay feel when his dad suddenly disappeared from his life?
What were his thoughts?
How did this impact on his development and adjustment?
***
Jay’s dad did not know where his son was. In April 2021 he made an application to the court. He asked that he be declared Jay’s legal parent; he asked to know where Jay was living; he asked for an order for him to spend time with Jay and he asked the court to stop Jay being taken out of the country. The court immediately ordered that Jay was not to be removed from the country. This was ordered without notice – his mum would not have had the opportunity to challenge this in court.
Jay’s mum did not attend the next court hearing in July, and did not attend many subsequent court hearings. This hearing was postponed, and transferred to a more a senior judge. At a remote court hearing in September, eight months after she had removed his father from his life, Jay’s mum reiterated that Jay’s dad may not be his biological father. She confirmed that she had told him he would never see Jay again. Despite her objections, the court ordered her to comply with paternity testing.
It’s been a long time - has dad forgotten about me?
I thought he loved me - but this can’t be so.
I miss my friends - and granny - and the park …
Jay’s mum did not comply, and she did not attend a remote court hearing in December. Jay was now 5 years old and had not seen his father for 11 months. The court declared that Jay’s dad was his legal father, and gave him PR. They also appointed a Guardian in order that Jay could be represented in future hearings.
At a hearing in January 2022 (one year after Jay had last seen his father), Jay’s mum agreed to paternity and alcohol testing. The court also ordered disclosures from the Local Authority, the police, mum’s and dad’s GP records and ordered the family to undergo a global psychological assessment. The court ordered that Jay should spend time with his dad, if or when the Guardian suggested. In March, the court made an order that Jay should spend time with his father, at a contact centre, every fortnight.
On 6 May 2022, the court attached a penal notice to the previous order – warning Jay’s mum about the seriousness, and consequences, of her not ensuring Jay spent time with his dad. The court had significant concerns about Jay and ordered the Local Authority to urgently prepare a Section 37 report. Mum continued to fail to ensure that Jay spent time with his dad, and by the time of the June 2022 hearing, it had been 17 months since they had spent time with each other; the case had been in court for 14 months. Jay’s mum was pregnant, expecting another child. So concerning were the issues raised by the Local Authority and the psychologist experts, that the court determined it urgently needed to consider whether Jay would be better cared for by his mum or his dad in the short term.
Both the Local Authority and the court instructed psychologists found that Jay had experienced emotional and psychological harm in the care of his mum, and this harm would likely become significant without intervention. The psychologists said that Jay was not able to speak positively about his dad, or spend time with him, due to the hostility and negative beliefs of his mum and older half-sister. Their opinion was that Jay’s mum had manipulated and coerced him to lie about his experience with his dad. The intensity and pervasiveness of her distorted, false, unevidenced views (including those around sexual harm) amounted to gaslighting – Jay’s own positive experience of his dad becoming eroded and diminished, as he absorbed and incorporated her negative views as his own.
I thought I remembered being safe and happy with dad - but mum keeps telling me this isn’t true. She says he hurt me, he didn’t love me. She says if he loved me he would be here. She says he was nasty and I mustn’t talk about him any more. She gets angry when I ask about him. I’ll stop asking …. Maybe mum is right. She loves me, she wouldn’t lie - it is bad to lie ….
Jay’s mum was considered unable to put Jay’s needs before her own. She was abusing alcohol, exposing Jay to a succession of violent intimate partner relationships, isolating him from a key attachment figure. Her lack of insight into her own behaviours and functioning, her inability to mentalise Jay’s experience, to step inside his shoes, meant that she would continue to struggle to provide a secure and stable home for him.
I am frightened, scared - I don’t know what to do. I don’t like this new man - he hurts mummy; she cries. Sometimes mummy doesn’t wake up when I shake her … He shouts at me when I cry.
The social worker who prepared the Section 37 report was clear –Jay (and his half-sibling) were at risk of significant harm. She recommended a Child Protection Plan for both and that Jay should be cared for by his dad while being supported to maintain his relationship with his mum. If Jay was not cared for by his father, the Local Authority would be making an application to the court to remove Jay from the care of his mum.
Jay’s mum maintained and voiced her belief that she was an excellent mum. She refuted all the evidence and suggestions to the contrary, put forward by the independent professionals involved. She had not maintained her engagement with an alcohol abuse service. She had declined to share with the professionals that one of her children had previously been placed in care. She had planned to up-sticks again and move to a different, distant, location – without notifying the court, the parties or the Local Authority. It was this latter fact that prompted the Guardian and Local Authority to recommend an urgent, rather than stepped, placement of Jay in the care of his dad.
The court ordered Jay to be placed in his father’s care immediately, on the basis that he was better able to meet Jay’s needs and had shown he could work with professionals. Therapeutic intervention was recommended due to his tendency to be intense and erratic. The court also ordered that Jay should not see his mum for a period of 6 weeks to enable him to settle into his father’s care. Subsequent time with his mum should be as recommended by Cafcass or the Local Authority.
This is really scarey.
Where is mummy? Is she hurt? Is she in hospital? Why can’t I see mummy?
I want to go to school - I felt safe in school.
My tummy hurts.
It is really, really confusing. Daddy seems nice - but mummy said he hurt me. I’m scared he is going to hurt me again ….
Oh no! New school, new people - too much. It hurts inside….
Jay thrived in his father’s care. He was seen to be happy, had settled well into school and had not raised any concerns with his social worker. However, concerns remained that Jay was caught between his parents and felt compelled to please each of them, suppressing his views in favour of what he felt his mum or dad wished to hear. Jay’s mum had not taken any of the opportunities to spend time with Jay. She said that this had not been possible due to the distance, cost and caring demands of her recently born son (who was on a Child Protection Plan). Her baby’s social worker had offered to drive her to see Jay and the Local Authority had offered her financial support to do so. She had accepted neither offer.
This is ok. My new teacher is nice. Daddy hasn’t hurt me. I’m still a little bit scared he might … I’m still extra careful what I say and do. I don’t want to make him angry. Those other men frightened me when they were angry … I miss mummy so much. I want a hug. Where is she? Why doesn’t she come and see me? Has she stopped loving me? Maybe she doesn’t want me now she has a new little boy?
At the final hearing in February 2023, both the Local Authority and the Guardian recommended that Jay remained in the care of his father. Jay’s mum wished him to be returned to her care. Concerns remained about mum’s behaviours and ability to meet Jay’s emotional needs and support his relationship with his dad. She had recently left another abusive relationship, necessitating another house (and area) move. Her younger son remained on a recently renewed Child Protection Plan. It was felt by all involved that there was a significant risk that she would continue to cause Jay emotional harm if he resided in her care, or if any time with him was unsupervised. There was no evidence of any change in her behaviour.
The court’s final order was that Jay continue to live with his dad, maintain his supervised telephone/video time with his mum and saw his mum and baby brother, supervised, once every two months, initially supported by the Local Authority.
If you would like to receive my upcoming psychologically informed analysis of Jay’s experience, please consider a paid subscription.