A family court judge in Birmingham has refused a father’s application for a spend-time-with order in relation to a child aged 10 who is resistant to contact and says he ‘hates his father’.
In F v M & Ors [2025], district judge Stephen Parker considered the application by a father, referred to in court as F, in regard to a 10 year-old child known as AA, and BB, eight.
Their mother, known as M, in response to the application, alleged domestic abuse towards the children and said they are wary of F’s temper – however, F denied both allegations.
F alleged parental alienation by M, but judge Parker found the criteria for this was not met.
The children previously had supervised contact with their father, but AA began to refuse following an incident in May 2024 when he alleged his father squeezed his hand.
AA said he does not want contact with F and feels he is being forced to attend. He says contact is bad, and F tried to hit him during contact on 13 March 2025, when he raised his hand in a threatening manner. F denied this, and there was no evidence to suggest he had tried to hit AA on that occasion.
The local authority’s views is that continuing to force contact would not be in the child’s best interests.
The court heard that BB, on the other hand, is happy to see F, and does not know why AA does not attend, although BB has disclosed being hit by F in the past.
During the proceedings, AA said that F has shouted and hit him, and he has also witnessed F hitting his M, and is too scared to go to contact.
Judge Parker said: “I find the test of parental alienation is not met. I find that F’s parenting style towards AA has been disciplinarian in nature and included physical chastisement. I find that F treats BB more favourably than AA and is not attuned to AA’s particular emotional needs.”
“There is therefore in my view justification for AA’s refusal to spend time with his father, albeit, on the face of it, it appears overly disproportionate, as is his views of his father. However, I believe that that is more in line with the child’s characteristics than anything else and indeed form a part of F’s own character.”
The judge remarked on the fact that during proceedings “there are a number of instances where F has displayed clear favouritism towards BB over AA”, he also said that F, in his evidence, “has made a number of statements which are quite illuminating.”
For example: “As a throwaway remark, he said the children should be treated like adults, when addressing disclosure of adult issues.”
The court had considered the implications of removing AA into the care of the local authority as a “more neutral” environment if allegations of parental alienation were proven.
Judge Parker said F’s “lack of insight into the ramifications of a change of living arrangements with AA, I have to say is concerning, given the factual matrix in this case”. He added: “It will mean separating the children, it would mean considering the emotional impact on both of them, particularly AA, given his entrenched views. So is a lack of consideration of the potential for AA absconding, and putting himself at risk.”
He added: “Whilst I appreciate that what AA has to say about his father may be difficult to swallow, and is, I have to say, quite extreme, and hurtful, F seems unable to face the reality of what his son is saying and has said consistently throughout these proceedings to various professionals.”
The judge commented that “a different approach is needed if this situation is to be resolved”. He concludes: “One thing is clear: Ongoing litigation and forcing the issue is not the right answer. This may need therapeutic intervention outside the proceedings involving AA and both parents.”
