A separated couple “weaponised” their autistic daughter during a bitter, years-long dispute which destroyed her once-close relationship with her father, the Royal Court has found.
Judge Samantha McFadzean said the primary-school-age child was the “only casualty” of her parents’ continuing “war against each other”.
The child previously divided her time between her parents under a shared-residence order agreed several years ago.
Both parents have weaponised the child in their war against each other; the only casualty of this long-running battle is the child
Judge Samantha McFadzean
But contact with her father progressively broke down amid allegations, counter-allegations, court applications and confrontations between the parents.
Proceedings began around three years ago after the mother applied to change the shared-residence arrangement, alleging that the father had told their daughter that he would kill her mother.
“Reprehensible, ill-considered behaviour”
The court found that he had said he would “kill” the mother if she hurt the child – but ruled that the words were not intended as a genuine threat.
Judge McFadzean nevertheless described the remark as “reprehensible, ill-considered behaviour” and found that the father later lied to the court about saying it.
However, she did not believe the mother sincerely considered it a serious threat and criticised her decision to involve the police.
“This appears to be the modus operandi of both parents, ever seeking to use the other’s behaviour as cannon fodder,” she said.
The court also examined a confrontation outside the father’s flat, which their young daughter witnessed.
The judge found that the mother probably assaulted the father after putting her foot in his doorway, while he attempted to close the door regardless of her foot being there. Both parents then tried to involve the police.
“For a [young] girl to witness her parents behave like this must have been shocking indeed,” Judge McFadzean said.
“Both parents have weaponised the child”
Neither parent was found to present a physical danger to the child. Instead, the risk arose from their “unrestrained” hostility.
The mother’s behaviour was at times “redolent of emotional manipulation”, while the father’s uncontrolled and argumentative reactions had also contributed to his daughter withdrawing from him.
“Both parents have weaponised the child in their war against each other; the only casualty of this long-running battle is the child,” the judge said.
The child now felt anxious and frightened about seeing her father – sometimes to the point of feeling physically sick or refusing school.
Although restoring their relationship would be in her best interests, the judge ruled that compulsory contact would risk further emotional harm.
Contact will instead resume at the child’s pace, the court decided. The family will attend a professionally facilitated session at which both parents must apologise for the confrontation, with weekly video contact expected in the meantime.
Judge McFadzean said repairing the relationship remained possible – but only if both parents did more than pay “lip service” to changing their behaviour.
“In order to do so,” she concluded, “they both need to take a long look in the mirror.”
