Mum's relief as dangerous dad barred from contacting their child

A convicted paedophile has been barred from contacting his daughter after a judge found he poses an "extremely high risk of sexual and emotional harm". The mother and her family told WalesOnline they are "extremely grateful" to the Cardiff family court judge – but they also spoke out on the huge legal costs and the case's "horrific" emotional toll.

Although imprisoned for sexual offending the father still held parental responsibility for his daughter because he was married to the mum at the time of the birth. The mum, who claims to have been "repeatedly raped" by the father, applied for a court order to strip him of parental responsibility after he was jailed. His convictions, which cannot be reported for legal reasons, did not involve his ex-wife or daughter.

Judge Mererid Edwards said the concern over the father's behaviour "extends beyond his criminal convictions". The judge noted he had admitted watching "incestuous pornography" while the child was in his care, adding: "There are also SMS messages between [the father] and a vulnerable individual which evidence him building a relationship, gaining trust, and then discussing matters of a sexual nature." Judge Edwards described this as "the sort of manipulative and grooming behaviour often used by abusers".

The judge noted that messages sent by the father "appear to acknowledge having had sexual intercourse" with the mother while she was asleep. "As a bare minimum the messages indicate a concerning lack of understanding in relation to consent and sexual boundaries," said Judge Edwards.

The girl is described by her mum as a "happy, thriving, well-adjusted child" who is surrounded by loving friends and family. She has no memory of her father. The mum argued it would be "incredibly traumatising" for her to be told of her father's "depravity". An independent adviser to the court, representing the child's interests, recommended that the father have no contact with the child and that his parental responsibility be heavily restricted.

Judge Edwards ordered that the girl live with her mother until the age of 18 and that the father be barred from contacting her until that age. The judge said he posed "an extremely high risk of sexual and emotional harm" to the child and that the mother "needs to be free" from any fear that he could locate them in the future.

After the judgment the child's maternal grandmother told WalesOnline she was glad the judge had "seen through" the father's "charm", adding: "He was able to look very contrite and heartfelt in court. It would be easy to start feeling sorry for him. These people are very plausible and manipulative. He's the last person on earth you would think is a paedophile."

The grandmother revealed her daughter spent £30,000 in legal fees and put in hundreds of hours reading about family law. The time she spent reading legal texts meant that when the father was given an exemption to his sexual harm prevention order earlier this year she knew this would allow him to apply for access to the child. "It was a very favourable outcome but my daughter made her own luck," said the grandmother. "Many families won't have a chance because, first of all, will they be able to afford the legal fees? Will they understand all the legal terminology?"

She added that a conversation is needed about how the legal system can better support people in similar situations. "This has been the worst time in our lives," she said. "Imagine any mother trying to sleep easy knowing a paedophile father could request access to their child. It's horrific. People need to know they can't wait until the father comes out of prison to protect their child because the chance is he could then be given access."

The judge did allow the father to retain some rights. The father, who appeared in court via a videolink, said he would want to be informed if his daughter's name was changed even if he was not to be told what the new name actually was. He also asked to be informed if she suffered a life-threatening health issue or if she permanently left the UK. Judge Edwards denied the request about the name as she could not see how this would assist the girl. But she ordered that the father must be informed if the girl leaves the jurisdiction permanently or is in a life-threatening condition. This does not mean he will be able to make decisions on issues like the girl's health or travelling abroad and the mum will not have to consult him on her decisions.

The father also asked to be sent an annual report on the girl's progress. The independent adviser believed there was "scope" for the mother to send such reports through an agency but Judge Edwards said this could cause "further trauma" to the mum. The father told the court that the reports would be valuable to his chances of "having any form of relationship with my daughter even after she's 18". The judge decided not to impose an order on the mum to prepare reports but added: "I would invite her to consider doing so from time to time."

Asked at the end of the hearing if he understood the judgment the father replied: "If [the child] is ill or if she leaves the jurisdiction those are the only circumstances when I would be informed – not if her name changed?" The judge said this was correct and the father said: "I understand. I respect that."

Reacting to the judgment the mother said: "I am extremely grateful for the thorough and child-centred approach taken by the professionals involved in this court case. When her father blamed his victims for the sexual abuse he inflicted upon them the court recognised that he continued to be unsafe. When he disclosed watching incest porn in our child's presence the court understood, in the context of his offences, the extreme risk that he posed to our daughter's safety. I am so grateful that they made the appropriate orders to keep her from harm. The final orders free my child to have the normal, healthy upbringing that all children deserve."

WalesOnline covered this case under a new transparency scheme that allows media to report on family court cases. The parties involved are not identified in our coverage. If you are aware of an upcoming Cardiff family court case that you believe we should cover you can contact us at conor.gogarty@walesonline.co.uk.