Siégeant au tribunal de la famille d’Oxford, la juge Joanna Vincent a rendu aujourd’hui une décision intéressante dans une affaire où un père violent demandait à renouer des liens avec sa fille. La décision expose en effet très bien la façon dont la législation afférente et les règles procédurales doivent être appliquées en tel cas. Nonobstant les particularités du régime de common law en vigueur outre-Manche, il nous paraît intéressant de signaler cette décision à l’attention de nos lecteurs.
Contexte
En l’espèce, une Anglaise avait rencontré un homme lors d’un voyage en Amérique du Sud en octobre 2008. Après une longue relation à distance, l’homme était venu en Angleterre en septembre 2010 pour y faire des études, avec un visa étudiant de douze mois. Le couple s’était séparé en juin 2011, et l’homme était retourné en Amérique du Sud (§§ 3-4). La femme avait peu après signalé à la police qu’elle avait été victime de « serious domestic abuse » (§ 5).
Le couple avait renoué au cours de l’été 2012 et conçu une petite fille, mais les parents s’étaient de nouveau séparés en décembre 2013 (§ 6).
Le père – dont on sait simplement qu’il réside désormais en Angleterre, qu’il est marié et a une autre petite fille – avait sollicité un child arrangements order en vertu du Children Act 1989 afin de pouvoir exercer son autorité parentale et passer du temps avec sa fille (§ 17). La mère s’y était opposée et avait proposé que les contacts entre le père et sa fille fussent limités à des échanges de courriers ; elle avait par la suite également demandé un non-molestation order et un prohibited steps order (§ 18).
La juge Joanna Vincent avait relevé de nombreux éléments à charge contre le père dans une précédente décision rendue en octobre 2018 :
« 3. […] By June 2011 the mother was experiencing the intensity of the father’s focus upon her as demanding and oppressive. She came to feel that she was responsible for his moods, which were changeable, he could be aggressive, particularly in their sexual relations, uncaring of her feelings, and she felt increasingly intimidated and at times scared by him. I found that her experience of the relationship between January and June 2011 was that it was abusive.
[…]
« 8. […] I do not find that the excerpts from texts of emails upon which he relied did establish the uncomplicated and purely loving picture he wanted to suggest. […] The messages are raw and written with a great deal of heightened emotion and soul-searching, and are exposing of the mother’s feelings at that time. […]
« 9. […] There is consistency, over many years, from the mother in the way she describes the father’s behaviour. Her complaint was made a couple of years before [their daughter]’s birth, it is hard to conceive what her motivation would be, and if seeking to exclude him from her life, why she at the same time persisted with declarations of love. […]
« 10. […] I accepted her account of the change in his behaviour towards her, that he could be cold and unfeeling towards her and at times aggressive in their sexual relationship.
« 11. I found that the father had caused physical harm to the mother by insisting on practising on a daily basis Aikido moves on her. […]
« 12. […] His behaviour towards her has had a profound effect upon her. […]
[…]
« 15. I found that during the period of the relationship when the father was in England between January and June 2011 he did seek to influence her in ways that made the mother feel increasingly isolated, and to lose self-confidence and her sense of identity. […] »
Analyse de la situation
Pour traiter la requête paternelle, la juge Joanna Vincent a appliqué les sections 1(1) et 1(2A) du Children Act 1989 : le bien-être de l’enfant doit être une considération primordiale du tribunal et les deux parents sont présumés pouvoir s’occuper de leur enfant, « unless that is proved to be contrary to the child’s welfare », précisant toutefois qu’il résulte clairement de la section 1(2B) que « that involvement need not be equal and may be direct or indirect » (§ 21).
Ayant établi des faits de violence familiale, la juge Joanna Vincent s’est également appuyée sur la Practice Direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, dont elle a cité les trois paragraphes suivants :
« 35. When deciding the issue of child arrangements the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.
« 36. In the light of any findings of fact or admissions or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained. In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm which the child and the parent with whom the child is living has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse, and any harm which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made. The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before during and after contact, and that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent.
« 37. In every case where a finding or admission of domestic abuse is made, or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider –
(a) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living;
(b) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child’s relationship with the parents;
(c) whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent;
(d) the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and
(e) the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse. »
La juge Joanna Vincent a ensuite déterminé la jurisprudence pertinente, en commençant par Re C (Direct Contact: Suspension) ([2011] EWCA Civ 521), décision qui établit que le contact entre un enfant et ses parents est fondamental, et qu’il ne peut être interrompu que s’il est « detrimental to the child’s welfare » (§ 23).
Le père avait fait valoir trois autres décisions antérieures à la Practice Direction 12J et basées sur le même principe (§§ 24-29) : Re J (a minor) ([1994] 1 FLR 729), Re M (a minor) (contact: conditions) ([1994] 1 FLR 272) et Re O (contact: imposition of conditions) ([1995] 2 FLR 124-128) – dans cette dernière décision, le juge Thomas Bingham avait toutefois soutenu « that in existing circumstances an order for immediate direct contact should not be ordered, because so to order would injure the welfare of the child ».
De son côté, l’avocate de la mère avait fait valoir MS v MN ([2017] EWHC 324 (Fam)) (§§ 30-31), où le juge Philip Moor avait cité un autre important principe établi par la juge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss dans sa décision Re L (A child) (Contact: Domestic Violence) & Ors ([2001] FLR 260) :
« There is not, however, nor should there be, any presumption that on proof of domestic violence the offending parent has to surmount a prima facie barrier of no contact. As a matter of principle, domestic violence of itself cannot constitute a bar to contact. It is one factor in the difficult and delicate balancing exercise of discretion. The court deals with the facts of a specific case in which the degree of violence and the seriousness of the impact on the child and on the resident parent have to be taken into account. In cases of proved domestic violence, as in cases of other proved harm or risk of harm to the child, the court has the task of weighing in the balance the seriousness of the domestic violence, the risks involved and the impact on the child against the positive factors (if any), of contact between the parent found to have been violent and the child. In this context, the ability of the offending parent to recognise his past conduct, be aware of a need to change, and make genuine efforts to do so, will be likely to be an important consideration. »
On voit bien ici à quel point la prudence est requise dans l’examen de ce type d’affaire et combien il est difficile pour le juge d’équilibrer les différents facteurs à prendre en compte.
Concernant l’exercice de l’autorité parentale, la juge Joanna Vincent a rappelé qu’il doit être dans l’intérêt de l’enfant. Elle a également précisé les éléments à prendre en compte sur ce point (§ 34) :
« The Court should take into account the degree of commitment the father has shown towards the child, the degree of attachment between him and the child, and the reasons why he is applying for the order. »
Concernant la mère, la juge Joanna Vincent a ainsi conclu (§ 42) :
« I am satisfied to the standard of a balance of probabilities that her anxiety is real, persistent and that it stems from the experiences of her relationship with the father. »
La juge Joanna Vincent s’est également appuyée sur les conclusions d’un expert ayant établi trois rapports (§§ 45-53) :
« 53. At root of Mr Kent’s analysis is the dynamics of the parental relationship. In his view essentially the parents are stuck; the mother remains traumatised and emotionally fragile as a result of her experiences in the relationship, and the father is unable or unwilling to acknowledge responsibility for the harm he caused to her, regards it as historic and not relevant to present circumstances, and instead now blames her for failing to facilitate a relationship between daughter and father. »
La juge Joanna Vincent a ensuite passé en revue, de façon très détaillée, les différents points à prendre en considération au regard du bien-être de l’enfant tels qu’exposés dans la section 1(3) du Children Act 1989 (§§ 54-109). Avec perspicacité, elle a relevé que l’enfant est trop jeune (sept ans) pour fournir des informations fiables (§ 57), ce d’autant que la mère transmet probablement ses propres sentiments à sa fille, ce qui est préjudiciable à cette dernière (§ 58). De fait, l’anxiété maternelle est au premier plan lorsque la mère doit envisager de communiquer avec le père, alors qu’elle est le seul soutien émotionnel de sa fille (§ 63). La juge Joanna Vincent a aussi relevé que le père avait refusé de regarder un story-board confectionné par l’enfant et contenant des photographies du père, au motif que, selon lui, la mère n’avait jamais cessé de le dénigrer devant leur fille (§§ 65-66).
En estimant le risque de préjudice pour l’enfant, la juge Joanna Vincent a relevé l’impact prévisible de trois facteurs :
- le conflit continu des parents (§§ 71-74), notamment le déni paternel des inquiétudes maternelles, considérées comme « absurd, fabricated and malicious » (§ 74), et le fait que « he does not accept that there is any need for him to make changes » (ibid.) ;
- l’expression trop intense des émotions du père (§§ 75-79), décrite comme « overwhelming » (§§ 80-81) ;
- l’incapacité du père à prioriser les besoins de sa fille plutôt que les siens (§§ 80-82).
Ayant ainsi conclu que le risque de préjudice est bien réel, la juge Joanna Vincent a ensuite examiné si ce risque pouvait quand même être géré (§§ 83-90). Sa conclusion est formelle :
« 88. Change starts with responsibility. The father has not demonstrated any real ability to accept the findings of the Court, to acknowledge that his behaviour towards the mother was experienced by her as abusive, and that her response to him is caused by the way that he behaved towards her. […]
[…]
« 90. I do not consider that the risks could successfully be managed with intervention from social services, supervised contact or other third party. […] »
Se référant aux paragraphes 35 à 37 de la Practice Direction 12J cités supra, la juge Joanna Vincent a conclu qu’il y aurait un risque ingérable de préjudice, à la fois pour l’enfant et sa mère, si un contact direct avait lieu entre l’enfant et son père :
« 92. […] I do not consider that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can be secured before during and after contact. […]
« 93. With regard to the specific matters at paragraph 37 of the practice direction, I have considered the impact of the continued parental conflict upon [the child] and the risks that would pose to her relationship with each of her parents. Her mother’s ability to care for her would be impaired and her feelings that in pursuing a relationship with her father may cause her mother unhappiness or anxiety are likely to be burdensome. Because of the father’s personality, the intensity of his emotions, she may be subject to feeling overwhelmed, confused, constrained to follow his lead, or responsible for his emotions. She is at risk of being exposed to the high levels of negativity with which he sees the mother and her parenting could be undermined as a result or she could feel conflicted. »
Décision
La juge Joanna Vincent a refusé tout contact direct entre l’enfant et son père :
« 100. While the father is so fixed in his perspective that he is the victim in the scenario and while he holds such a relentlessly negative view of the mother, and while his interactions with her throughout these proceedings have been to seek to undermine her, accuse her, and belittle her experiences, there is no prospect of her anxiety being lessened and of feeling any reassurance that contact for her daughter will be safe. Her own emotional safety would continue to be adversely impacted, and this is likely to have an adverse effect on her capacity to parent her daughter and other children. »
Les seuls contacts autorisés se feront « in the form of letters, cards and gifts on Christmas and birthdays » (§ 106).
Bien que cela n’ait été demandé par aucune des parties, la juge Joanna Vincent a quand même expliqué pourquoi un contact indirect via Skype serait inapproprié :
« 109. […] The mother gave reasons as to why she did not consider the previous remote contact worked. It would be a very direct intrusion into the mother’s home, which would fuel her anxiety, either she or a family member would have to supervise, which she would not feel comfortable with, and it is not always an easy way for children to connect to someone with whom they do not have an established bond already. It could put pressure on [the child] if she felt that there was information about her home and surroundings that she should not be sharing. It is harder to supervise and manage once children get to a stage where they have access to a smartphone or tablet or computer in the house. »
La juge Joanna Vincent a également refusé au père l’exercice de l’autorité parentale (§§ 110-111) :
« 111. […] I do not consider it appropriate that he should exercise parental responsibility in circumstances where he does not have a relationship with her, is not going to be in a position to make informed decisions about what is in her welfare interest and where he has a very fixed view that the child’s mother is wrong and that his perspective is right. »
La juge Joanna Vincent a enfin estimé qu’un non-molestation order et un prohibited steps order n’étaient pas nécessaires (§§ 112-114).
- Références
- England and Wales Family Court (Oxford)
Décision du 3 décembre 2020
R (no order for contact after findings of domestic abuse) [2020] EWFC B57
Décision archivée au format PDF (368 Ko, 23 p.).
Attention ! La jurisprudence et la loi évoluent en permanence. Assurez-vous auprès d’un professionnel du droit de l’actualité des informations données dans cet article, publié à fin d’information du public.
Faire un don
Totalement indépendant, ne bénéficiant à ce jour d’aucune subvention publique et ne vivant que de la générosité privée, P@ternet a besoin du soutien de ses lecteurs pour continuer, et se développer. Si cet article vous a intéressé, vous pouvez soutenir P@ternet grâce à un don ponctuel en cliquant sur l’image ci-dessous.
