Attwood and Rigby (No.3)

In *Attwood and Rigby (No.3)*, Judge Terry considered the parenting arrangements for a child, [X], born in 2009. The dispute concerned the child's time with her father and the extent of parental responsibility. The court was tasked with determining the future living arrangements and parental responsibility for [X], taking into account the child's views and her relationship with each parent.

The court was required to consider the child's expressed preferences regarding time with her father, the weight to be given to those views based on her maturity, and the nature of her relationship with both parents. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the child's apprehension about unsupervised contact, as evidenced by her "funny feeling" about the supervisor's absence, indicated a genuine fear or was a reflection of her limited memory of unsupervised time and awareness of her mother's anxiety. The court also had to evaluate the father's assertion of a continuing close relationship with the child against the reality that the child's only memories of contact were of supervised visits since 2013.

Judge Terry reasoned that while the child expressed a preference for modified contact arrangements and a "funny feeling" about unsupervised time, this was likely influenced by her lack of memory of any period other than supervised contact and potentially her mother's anxiety. The court found that the child was not expressing unhappiness with seeing her father but was not actively seeking more time or unsupervised contact. Considering the child's limited memory and the potential for adjustment with support, the court determined that the existing supervised contact orders were no longer appropriate. The court discharged the previous orders for time with the father and made new orders that the child live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility. These orders intentionally made no provision for future contact with the father, leaving that decision to the mother's discretion.