BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF MY CHILD MAINTENANCE CASE

Introduction

I have been dealing with serious and ongoing problems concerning the calculation and administration of my child maintenance case since 2014.

Over more than a decade, I have repeatedly tried to provide the Child Maintenance Service with accurate 

information about my income, employment, benefit periods, pension contributions, payments, and shared care arrangements.

Despite this, I believe my case has been repeatedly calculated and administered incorrectly.

The main issues concern:

• failure to properly account for shared care from 2014;
• failure to properly consider the 2014 mediation agreement;
• failure to properly account for the 2020 court order;
• use of income figures that do not correspond with my actual HMRC records;
• use of estimated, assumed, historic, or averaged income figures;
• failure to properly account for periods when I was unemployed or receiving benefits;
• failure to properly account for my pension contributions;
• inconsistencies between CMS letters, telephone records, account statements and calculations;
• repeated changes to my liability;
• disputed arrears;
• failure to properly correct earlier errors;
• and the considerable amount of time and effort I have had to spend trying to establish what my true maintenance liability should have been.

1. Opening of My Case in Jan 2014

My child maintenance case began in 2014.

From the beginning of the case, I believe CMS failed to properly establish and apply all of the relevant facts concerning my circumstances.

One of the most important issues was shared care.

There was a mediation agreement in place from 2014 concerning the care arrangements for my child.

My position is that my child stayed with me for at least 52 nights per year and that this should have been properly considered when calculating my child maintenance liability.

Despite this, CMS did not consistently apply the correct shared care reduction to my assessments.

This issue has affected the calculations made throughout the history of my case.

2. The 2014 Mediation Agreement

The 2014 mediation agreement is important evidence because it demonstrates that shared care arrangements existed from the beginning of the CMS case.

I have repeatedly raised the issue of shared care.

However, CMS has either failed to properly consider the agreement, failed to apply the correct number of shared care nights, or failed to correct earlier calculations after being provided with evidence.

My concern is that CMS effectively calculated parts of my case as though the shared care arrangements did not exist.

This caused my maintenance liability to be assessed at a higher amount than I believe should have been payable.

3. Problems With Income Information
Another major issue throughout my case has been the income figures used by CMS.

I have compared figures appearing in CMS letters and statements against my own HMRC, employment and income records.

My actual annual income figures were:

• 2014 – £6,610.30
• 2015 – £4,002.26
• 2016 – £9,279.59
• 2017 – £13,357.36
• 2018 – £16,074.42
• 2019 – £10,200.00
• 2020 – approximately £0.45 according to the income information I have previously provided concerning the effects of the COVID period
• 2021 – £7,337.00
• 2022 – £0.00

Despite this, CMS letters and records have contained different income figures and calculations.

At various points, CMS appears to have used income figures that do not correspond with my actual earnings.

I have therefore spent a considerable amount of time comparing:

• CMS income figures;
• HMRC records;
• P45 records;
• employment dates;
• benefit periods;
• CMS assessment periods;
• weekly maintenance amounts;
• annual review calculations;
• and CMS arrears statements.

These comparisons have identified numerous discrepancies.

4. Use of Estimated, Assumed or Averaged Income

I am particularly concerned that CMS has used estimated, assumed, historic or averaged income figures when calculating my liability.

My income and employment circumstances changed considerably throughout the period covered by this case.

There were periods when I was:

• employed;
• unemployed;
• receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance;
• receiving Universal Credit;
• affected by the COVID period;
• and receiving very low or no income.

Despite these changing circumstances, CMS appears to have continued using figures that did not accurately represent my actual financial circumstances during the relevant periods.

This has caused me to question whether the correct income information was obtained, considered and 

applied at the correct time.

5. Employment Records and Benefit Periods

I have identified numerous periods of employment and unemployment between 2014 and 2022.

I have compared these periods against the dates and figures used by CMS.

There are discrepancies between:

• when I was actually employed;
• when employment ended;
• when CMS recorded changes;
• when I was receiving benefits;
• and when CMS changed my maintenance liability.

For example, I have evidence of letters from employers confirming when employment ended, yet CMS 

assessments did not always appear to change in accordance with that information.

I have also identified periods during which I was receiving JSA or Universal Credit.

My concern is that CMS continued to charge maintenance amounts that did not accurately reflect my 

circumstances during those periods.

6. Failure to Properly Account for Pension Contributions

A further serious issue concerns my pension contributions.

Since the case opened in 2014, CMS has not properly deducted my qualifying pension contributions when calculating the income used for my child maintenance assessments.

Instead, CMS appears to have used gross income figures, historic income figures or averaged income without making the appropriate adjustments for pension contributions.

This issue potentially affects multiple years of assessments.

I am therefore requesting a year-by-year review of my pension contributions and the income figures used by CMS from 2014 onwards.

I want CMS to explain:

• what income figure was used for each assessment;
• where that figure came from;
• whether pension contributions were considered;
• what pension contribution evidence was available;
• whether any deductions were made;
• and, if no deductions were made, why they were not made.

7. Repeated Changes to My Maintenance Liability

Throughout the history of the case, CMS repeatedly changed the amount of maintenance I was expected to pay.

The records I have reviewed show different:

• weekly maintenance amounts;
• effective dates;
• income figures;
• arrears figures;
• account balances;
• and explanations.

This has made it extremely difficult for me to understand how CMS calculated the amount it claims I owe.

I have attempted to reconstruct the entire history of the case by creating timelines showing:

• dates;
• income figures;
• employment periods;
• benefit periods;
• weekly liabilities;
• payments made;
• shared care;
• CMS letters;
• and account statements.

This work has revealed significant inconsistencies.

8. My Payments

I have also compiled records of payments I made towards child maintenance.

These include payments from 2014 onwards.

I have compared my payment records against the amounts CMS says were due.

My concern is that because the underlying maintenance assessments may have been incorrect, the arrears balance calculated by CMS may also be incorrect.

An arrears figure can only be reliable if the original liability calculations are correct.

If CMS:

• used the wrong income;
• failed to account for shared care;
• failed to account for relevant benefit periods;
• failed to properly account for changes in employment;
• or failed to deduct qualifying pension contributions,

then the resulting arrears calculations must also be reviewed.

9. The 2020 Court Order

In 2020, a court order was made concerning the care arrangements for my child.

This was further formal evidence relevant to the shared care arrangements.

Despite the existence of the court order, I do not believe CMS properly corrected the shared care element of my case.

This is particularly concerning because, by this stage, there was both the earlier 2014 mediation agreement and the later 2020 court order.

I therefore believe CMS should explain precisely:

• what shared care evidence was considered;
• what dates the evidence was considered from;
• what number of nights was applied;
• why shared care was not correctly applied from the relevant dates;
• and why earlier assessments were not corrected.

10. Problems During 2021 and 2022

My records show further discrepancies during 2021 and 2022.

For example, I have identified a period from:

16 November 2021 to 16 December 2021

during which the weekly amount was recorded as £0.00.

I have also identified the period:

16 December 2021 to 10 June 2022

during which an amount of £7.00 per week was charged.

I have questioned these assessments because of my circumstances involving Universal Credit and shared care.

These periods form part of the wider dispute concerning whether CMS correctly applied my income, benefit status and shared care arrangements.

11. Problems With CMS Letters and Telephone Records

I have reviewed CMS letters alongside telephone call notes and account statements.

These records do not always appear to agree with each other.

I have identified situations where:

• income figures changed;
• weekly maintenance amounts changed;
• arrears changed;
• different effective dates were used;
• employment information was not properly reflected;
• and shared care was not consistently applied.

This has made the case extremely difficult to follow.

I have repeatedly had to go back through years of documents to try to understand how CMS arrived at its figures.

12. My Attempts to Resolve the Matter

I have spent years trying to get these issues properly investigated and corrected.

I have:

• contacted CMS;
• challenged calculations;
• supplied information;
• compared CMS figures with HMRC records;
• compared CMS records with employment records;
• identified periods of unemployment;
• identified benefit periods;
• supplied evidence concerning shared care;
• relied upon the 2014 mediation agreement;
• relied upon the 2020 court order;
• reviewed telephone records;
• reviewed CMS letters;
• reviewed account statements;
• reconstructed my payment history;
• calculated what I believe my correct liability should have been;
• raised complaints;
• sought assistance from my MP;
• attempted to obtain legal assistance;
• and pursued escalation of my complaint.

Despite these efforts, the fundamental issues have still not been properly resolved.

13. Seeking Legal Assistance

I have attempted to seek professional legal assistance concerning this matter.

However, the cost of obtaining specialist legal representation has been beyond what I can reasonably afford.

This has meant that I have had to spend a considerable amount of time personally researching the relevant rules, reviewing documents and reconstructing the history of my case.

This has placed an additional burden on me.

14. Contact With My MP

I also sought assistance from my Member of Parliament.

However, I was informed that they could not directly resolve the matter and I was signposted elsewhere for assistance.

This meant that I was again left trying to pursue the complaint through other channels.

15. Escalation of My Complaint

Because the problems remained unresolved, I escalated my concerns beyond the normal CMS complaint process.

My case has involved consideration by, or referral towards, independent complaint and Ombudsman processes.

I have attempted to demonstrate that this is not a complaint about one isolated calculation.

It concerns a pattern of potential errors and administrative failures extending over more than a decade.

16. The Fundamental Problem With My Case

The fundamental problem is that I do not believe CMS has ever carried out a complete, transparent, year-

by-year reconstruction of my case.

Instead, individual issues appear to have been considered separately without addressing the overall consequences of earlier errors.

In my view, the correct approach should be to reconstruct the case from 2014 onwards.

For each relevant assessment period, CMS should establish:

• my actual income;
• the source of the income figure used;
• my employment status;
• my benefit status;
• my qualifying pension contributions;
• the applicable shared care arrangement;
• the correct effective date of each change;
• the correct weekly liability;
• payments actually made;
• any collection or enforcement charges;
• and the resulting balance.

Only after this exercise has been completed can a reliable arrears or overpayment figure be established.

17. The Effect This Has Had on Me

This case has continued for more than a decade.

During that time, I have had to repeatedly challenge calculations and try to understand contradictory information.

I have spent a considerable amount of time:

• reviewing documents;
• checking calculations;
• comparing dates;
• obtaining records;
• examining income information;
• checking employment history;
• reviewing benefit periods;
• calculating payments;
• researching CMS rules;
• writing complaints;
• and seeking assistance.

The prolonged nature of this dispute has caused me significant stress, frustration and uncertainty.

The situation has been made worse by the fact that I have repeatedly tried to provide evidence and explain the errors, yet I do not believe the case has ever been comprehensively corrected.

18. My Current Position

My position is that the CMS account cannot be treated as accurate until a complete reassessment has been carried out.

I dispute the reliability of the current arrears balance because the underlying assessments may contain 

errors relating to:

• shared care;
• income;
• employment dates;
• benefit periods;
• pension contributions;
• effective dates;
• payments;
• and previous CMS corrections.

I am not asking for my maintenance responsibilities to be ignored.

I am asking for my liability to be calculated accurately, lawfully and fairly using the correct evidence and 

circumstances for each relevant period.

19. What I Am Asking CMS and the Relevant Complaint Bodies to Do

I request a complete reconstruction and audit of my case from 2014 onwards.

I request that CMS:

1. Review the 2014 mediation agreement.
2. Review the 2020 court order.
3. Establish the correct shared care arrangement for every relevant period.
4. Explain why shared care was not correctly or consistently applied.
5. Obtain and use the correct HMRC income information for each relevant year.
6. Identify every occasion when estimated, assumed, historic or averaged income was used.
7. Explain the legal and factual basis for each income figure.
8. Review all periods of employment and unemployment.
9. Review all relevant JSA and Universal Credit periods.
10. Review my pension contributions for every relevant year from 2014 onwards.
11. Recalculate my adjusted gross income where qualifying pension contributions should have been deducted.
12. Recalculate my maintenance liability for every relevant period.
13. Compare the corrected liability against all payments I actually made.
14. Remove or correct any arrears that arose from incorrect assessments.
15. Refund or credit any overpayments identified.
16. Provide me with a complete year-by-year calculation showing exactly how the corrected balance has been reached.
17. Investigate why the errors and discrepancies were not identified and corrected earlier.
18. Consider the distress, inconvenience, time and effort I have experienced in trying to resolve this matter for more than a decade.

Conclusion

Since 2014, I have repeatedly attempted to ensure that my child maintenance liability is calculated using 

accurate information.

Despite providing and identifying evidence concerning my income, employment, benefits, payments, shared care arrangements, the 2014 mediation agreement, the 2020 court order and my pension contributions, I 

believe serious discrepancies remain unresolved.

The length and complexity of this dispute are themselves evidence of the need for a complete and 

independent review.

I therefore request that my case is not considered as a series of isolated complaints.

It should be investigated as one continuous history of potential administrative and calculation errors from 2014 onwards.

I request a full forensic reconstruction of the account so that the correct liability, payments, arrears or 

overpayments can finally be established.

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS, PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES AND WELFARE CONCERNS TO DATE

Daniel Matthews
Applicant and Litigant in Person

Introduction

I am the father of Ethan and have parental responsibility for him. Throughout these proceedings, my primary concern has been maintaining a meaningful relationship with my son, being properly involved in decisions concerning his health, education and welfare, and ensuring that decisions about Ethan are based upon 

complete and properly tested evidence.

I am a litigant in person and have Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”). My autism affects my processing speed, particularly when I am placed under pressure, interrupted, presented with substantial new information at short notice, or required to make significant decisions immediately.

Throughout the proceedings, I have attempted to comply with the Court’s directions, provide evidence, 

prepare statements and exhibits, respond to allegations made against me, engage with Cafcass, and raise concerns about my son's welfare and the continuing disruption to our relationship.

Despite those efforts, I have experienced repeated difficulties concerning contact with my son, 

communication and information sharing, disputed allegations, the preparation and availability of court 

documents, my ability to participate effectively in hearings, and uncertainty as to whether my evidence was actually available to and considered by the Court.

The history of difficulties concerning contact

The move in 2024 and the effect upon my relationship with my son

Before the move in 2024, my son lived less than ten minutes away from me. This enabled a much more practical and accessible relationship between us and made it considerably easier for my son to spend meaningful time with me.

The move in 2024 significantly changed those circumstances.

The geographical distance created substantial practical difficulties concerning contact, travel and my ability to maintain the same level of involvement in my son’s day-to-day life.

Since the move, contact has become increasingly dependent upon lengthy travel arrangements, the agreement and cooperation of his mum, and arrangements which, in my view, have not adequately supported my son’s relationship with me.

I have consistently raised concerns about the effect of the move and subsequent contact arrangements upon my son.

My position has always been that my son wishes to have a meaningful relationship with me and has, on a number of occasions, expressed a wish to spend more meaningful time with me.

I am concerned that insufficient distinction has been made between my son expressing frustration or unhappiness about excessive travelling and my son not wanting to see me.

Those are fundamentally different matters.

My son’s concern has, in my understanding, been about the amount of travelling required for limited time together, rather than a wish to have less of a relationship with me.

I have repeatedly attempted to find practical solutions to this problem.

These have included:

• meeting at an appropriate halfway location;
• sharing travel responsibilities;
• his mum delivering my son at the commencement of contact and me returning him at the conclusion of contact;
• longer periods of contact to make the travelling more proportionate;
• school holiday contact;
• alternating Christmas arrangements.

My concern is that these practical alternatives have not been adequately supported or implemented.

My concerns regarding his mum’s approach to my son’s relationship with me

Throughout these proceedings, I have become increasingly concerned that his mum has not consistently supported or facilitated my son’s wishes to have more meaningful time with me.

I recognise that his mum may dispute this.

However, my concern is based upon the pattern of events that I have experienced and documented throughout these proceedings.

This includes:

• repeated interruptions and changes to contact;
• difficulties agreeing practical arrangements;
• limited support for arrangements that would enable my son to spend longer and more meaningful periods with me;
• continued difficulties concerning communication;
• important information about my son’s health and welfare not routinely being shared with me;
• disputed allegations being raised against me;
• and arrangements increasingly resulting in less meaningful time between my son and me.

I am concerned that decisions concerning my son have too often been influenced by the continuing conflict between the adults rather than by properly supporting my son’s relationship with both of his parents.

I have also become concerned about what I perceive to be controlling behaviour surrounding contact, communication, information sharing and my involvement in my son’s life.

I do not ask the Court simply to accept my characterisation of his mum’s behaviour.

I ask the Court to consider the documented pattern of events and determine whether her actions have, intentionally or otherwise, restricted, undermined or failed adequately to support my son’s relationship with me.

Most importantly, I ask the Court to consider the effect of those circumstances upon my son.

My son’s wishes to spend more meaningful time with me

Throughout the proceedings, I have consistently maintained that my son wishes to have more meaningful time with me.

My concern is that his wishes have not resulted in arrangements that meaningfully support our relationship.

Instead, the arrangements have involved substantial travel for limited periods together, repeated interruptions to contact and, more recently, no direct contact since January 2026.

I am deeply concerned about the cumulative emotional effect upon my son of wanting a meaningful relationship with his father while repeatedly experiencing uncertainty, disruption and limitations surrounding that relationship.

I have always sought to reassure my son.

When he has asked questions about the proceedings or the difficulties concerning contact, I have not involved him in adult disputes or shown him court documents. I have reassured him that I will continue trying to resolve matters appropriately.

I have also consistently encouraged my son’s interests, confidence and development.

My son is bright, well-mannered and has many interests. When he becomes interested in something, he can excel at it. I have encouraged him to develop his confidence and abilities, including encouraging interests such as coding and basketball.

I have always sought to provide my son with reassurance, encouragement and emotional support.

The cumulative effect upon my son

My concern is no longer based upon one isolated event.

The circumstances must, in my view, be considered cumulatively.

My son:

• previously lived less than ten minutes away from me;
• experienced a significant change in circumstances following the move in 2024;
• has experienced increasing difficulties maintaining meaningful contact with me;
• has experienced substantial travelling for limited periods of contact;
• has experienced repeated disruption and uncertainty;
• has had no direct contact with me since January 2026;
• is now subject to arrangements providing only one weekend every four weeks and no school holiday contact;
• and, only four days after the hearing of 2 July 2026, his mum informed me that my son had made concerning comments regarding suicide and feeling misunderstood.

I consider this sequence of events to be extremely concerning.

I do not claim, without professional evidence, that the move, his mum’s actions or the disruption to contact have directly caused my son’s reported deterioration in emotional welfare.

However, I respectfully submit that these circumstances cannot simply be disregarded as irrelevant.

There must now be an urgent and independent assessment of whether:

• the prolonged disruption to my son’s relationship with me;
• the continuing parental conflict;
• the circumstances following the move in 2024;
• the repeated difficulties surrounding contact;
• the substantial reduction in meaningful father-son time;
• and the current arrangements

have contributed, or are contributing, to my son’s emotional distress.

My concern about the current circumstances

I am deeply concerned that the current approach is not working for my son.

I have repeatedly raised concerns.

I have repeatedly provided evidence.

I have repeatedly sought practical solutions.

I have repeatedly asked to be properly informed about my son’s health and welfare.

I have repeatedly sought meaningful arrangements that reduce travel and conflict.

Despite this, my relationship with my son has continued to deteriorate through prolonged separation and disruption.

My son’s emotional welfare is now sufficiently concerning that his mum herself has informed me that he has made comments concerning suicide and feeling misunderstood.

I respectfully submit that this represents a significant escalation in the welfare concerns surrounding my son.

The focus must now move away from untested allegations, adult conflict and further delay.

The focus must be upon establishing, through current and independent professional evidence:

• why my son is experiencing emotional distress;
• what support he requires;
• whether his current circumstances are meeting his emotional needs;
• whether his wishes concerning his relationship with me have been properly understood and supported;
• whether the prolonged disruption to our relationship has affected his welfare;
• and whether the current arrangements concerning where my son lives remain in his best interests.

Revised conclusion

Throughout these proceedings, my objective has been to protect my relationship with my son and promote his welfare.

Before the move in 2024, my son lived less than ten minutes away from me. Since that move, maintaining our relationship has become increasingly difficult and dependent upon lengthy travel, cooperation between the adults and arrangements which have repeatedly resulted in disruption and reduced meaningful time together.

My son has expressed wishes to spend more meaningful time with me.

I remain concerned that those wishes have not been adequately supported by his mum or reflected in the practical arrangements made for him.

I have repeatedly sought solutions designed to reduce conflict and protect my son, including shared travel, halfway handovers, longer periods of meaningful contact, school holiday contact and alternating Christmas arrangements.

Despite my efforts, my son has now had no direct contact with me since January 2026.

Only four days after the hearing of 2 July 2026, his mum informed me that my son had made concerning comments regarding suicide and feeling misunderstood.

I do not ask the Court to make assumptions about the cause of my son’s distress.

I ask the Court to investigate it urgently and independently.

The circumstances have reached a point where I respectfully submit that further delay is not in my son’s interests.

I seek a process in which:

• all relevant evidence is properly before the Court;
• disputed allegations are properly tested;
• my disability is appropriately accommodated;
• my son’s wishes and feelings are properly understood;
• the history and effect of the 2024 move are considered;
• the prolonged disruption to my son’s relationship with me is properly assessed;
• current professional evidence concerning my son’s emotional welfare is obtained;
• meaningful and stable contact is restored;
• arrangements are made to protect my son from parental conflict;
• and all realistic welfare options, including whether my son should live with me, are properly and urgently considered.

My purpose is not to remove his mum from my son’s life or to punish her. I seek arrangements which protect my son’s welfare and allow him to have a meaningful, stable and loving relationship with both parents. However, given the serious deterioration now reported in my son’s emotional wellbeing, I respectfully submit that the Court must urgently examine whether the current arrangements are meeting his needs and whether a different living arrangement would better promote his welfare.

Throughout the proceedings, I have repeatedly raised concerns regarding the disruption and reduction of my time with my son.

My position has consistently been that my son should be able to maintain a meaningful, stable and loving 

relationship with both of his parents.

I have been concerned that disagreements between the adults, practical difficulties concerning travel, 

communication problems and allegations made during the proceedings have repeatedly resulted in further disruption to my relationship with my son.

I have sought arrangements that would provide Ethan with meaningful time with me while reducing 

unnecessary travel and opportunities for parental conflict.

I have also raised concerns that important information concerning Ethan’s health, treatment, education and day-to-day welfare has not always been shared with me appropriately, despite my parental responsibility.

These concerns have included learning that my son had undergone dental treatment, required clinical ear cleaning and had been prescribed glasses without me having been informed beforehand.

My concern has been that communication between the parents has too often focused on conflict and 

financial matters rather than effective co-parenting and the sharing of important information about my son.

The proceedings and evidence I prepared.

During the proceedings, I prepared and filed substantial evidence.

This included, amongst other documents:

• witness statements;
• Exhibits DM1–DM54;
• a detailed Position Statement;
• a detailed Response to the Section 7 Report;
• evidence concerning the history of contact;
• communications between the parties;
• evidence concerning disputed allegations;
• evidence concerning Ethan’s welfare;
• evidence concerning the difficulties with communication and information sharing;
• previous applications and court documents;
• evidence concerning the practical arrangements for contact.

I spent considerable time preparing this evidence as a litigant in person.

My purpose in doing so was to ensure that the Court had a complete picture of the history of the case and the evidence relevant to my son's welfare.

The Section 7 Report

A Section 7 Report was prepared during the proceedings.

I did not agree with all aspects of the report and prepared a detailed written response.

My concerns included what I considered to be factual inaccuracies, incomplete consideration of the history, the treatment of disputed allegations and the interpretation of my son's wishes and feelings.

I have consistently sought to distinguish between my son not wanting excessive travel for limited time 

together and my son wanting a meaningful relationship with me.

In my view, those are fundamentally different matters.

I have raised concerns that my son has wanted more meaningful time with me but that the practical 

arrangements since 2024 when he was moved 110 miles away, interruptions to contact and continuing 

conflict have made maintaining our relationship increasingly difficult.

The hearing of 16 February 2026

Following the hearing on 16 February 2026, arrangements were made concerning contact.

I remained concerned about the practicality of those arrangements because they involved substantial travelling for limited meaningful time between Ethan and me.

My understanding was that Ethan himself had expressed concerns regarding excessive travelling.

I continued to seek arrangements that would reduce the travel burden and provide more meaningful time together.

Possible arrangements included both parents meeting halfway for handovers.

I have subsequently continued to propose arrangements intended to reduce conflict, including either 

meeting halfway or the Respondent delivering my son at the commencement of contact and me returning him at the conclusion of contact.

My reason for proposing these arrangements is to protect Ethan from parental conflict and provide greater stability and certainty.

Continued difficulties after February 2026

Following the February hearing, further difficulties continued.

I raised concerns with the Court and provided further correspondence and evidence concerning what had 

occurred after 16 February 2026.

I continued to experience difficulties obtaining information concerning Ethan and maintaining meaningful contact.

Further allegations were also made against me, which I disputed.

These included matters concerning:

• my compliance regarding GP information;
• smoking;
• sleeping arrangements;
• the reasons why contact had not taken place.

I considered that evidence within my previously filed documents addressed these allegations.

Preparation for the 2 July 2026 hearing

Before the hearing on 2 July 2026, I prepared substantial documents.

These included my Position Statement and Response to the Section 7 Report.

I had also previously filed Exhibits DM1–DM54.

There were difficulties and confusion concerning the preparation of the hearing bundle.

I had prepared and submitted my evidence separately.

I had received correspondence from court staff concerning what documents I was required to include.

I was informed that I did not have to include the Respondent’s documents within my bundle.

The Respondent’s legal representatives subsequently prepared the hearing bundle.

I was later informed that neither party’s exhibits had been included within the hearing bundle because of the 350-page bundle limit.

This caused me significant concern because substantial evidence upon which I relied was not contained within the bundle being used for the hearing.

Late receipt of the Respondent’s Position Statement

Approximately one hour before the hearing on 2 July 2026, I received the Respondent’s Position Statement.

I had very limited time to read, understand and prepare a response to it.

This was particularly difficult because I am an autistic litigant in person with delayed processing.

I was therefore required to attend an important hearing while attempting to understand substantial new material provided shortly beforehand.

At the same time, the Respondent was legally represented.

The hearing of 2 July 2026

The hearing took place before District Judge between approximately 11:00 am and 12:10 pm.

I appeared as a litigant in person.

The Respondent was legally represented.

During the hearing, it became apparent that my Position Statement was not initially before District Judge 

My understanding from what occurred during the hearing is that my Position Statement had been sent to the wrong judge and had to be located.

This caused me serious concern.

I had spent substantial time preparing my Position Statement to ensure that the Judge understood my case, my response to the Section 7 Report, the evidence I relied upon and my concerns regarding my son.

The fact that the Position Statement was not initially before the Judge left me concerned about how the hearing could proceed fairly.

I was also uncertain about whether my Exhibits DM1–DM54 were readily available to and considered by the Judge.

During the hearing, false assertions were made concerning matters I disputed, including GP information, smoking, my son's sleeping arrangements and contact.

I felt unable to respond fully to all matters raised.

I also felt that I was interrupted while attempting to explain my position.

Because of my autism and delayed processing, interruptions and pressure make it significantly more difficult for me to formulate and communicate my answers effectively.

I left the hearing feeling overwhelmed and concerned that I had not been able to present my case fully.

The Order made on 2 July 2026

My understanding is that the arrangements ordered provide for direct contact once every four weeks from Friday to Sunday.

There is no school holiday contact and no provision for alternating Christmas contact.

I have concerns regarding the travel and handover arrangements because I also have responsibilities 

towards my younger son, including school commitments.

I am concerned that the Order does not provide sufficient meaningful time for my son and me to rebuild and maintain our relationship.

At the time of writing, HMCTS has confirmed that the sealed Order from 2 July 2026 is not yet available.

I have also been informed that, if reasons were given for the decision, they would have been given orally and that I should apply for a transcript using Form EX107.

My complaint following the hearing

Following the hearing, I submitted a formal complaint concerning the administrative and procedural problems I had experienced.

My concerns included:

• the late receipt of the Respondent’s Position Statement;
• my Position Statement not initially being before the Judge;
• uncertainty regarding the availability of my evidence;
• the handling of the hearing bundle;
• the difficulties I experienced participating effectively as an autistic litigant in person.

HMCTS subsequently confirmed that my complaint was being investigated.

The HMCTS response of 8 July 2026

On 8 July 2026, I received the First Contact Response from the Family Team Manager at Portsmouth Combined Court.

The response stated that all statements, evidence, exhibits and emails received from parties are filed, 

uploaded to the case file and available to the Judge conducting the hearing.

The response further stated that the Court File was shared with the Judge at the start of the day.

HMCTS concluded that it could not identify maladministration by court staff.

I remain dissatisfied with this response.

My concern is that saying documents were electronically “available” does not explain why my Position Statement was not initially before District Judge and had to be located during the hearing.

It also does not answer my specific concerns about whether DM1–DM54 were included in the hearing bundle, how they were indexed, how the Judge was alerted to their existence or whether they were practically accessible during the hearing.

The HMCTS response confirms that I can escalate my complaint to Stage 2 for review by the Operational Manager for East Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

I am therefore escalating my complaint.

My concerns regarding the fairness of the proceedings

My concerns are cumulative.

I do not rely upon one isolated problem.

I am concerned that:

• I am an autistic litigant in person with delayed processing;
• I received the Respondent’s Position Statement approximately one hour before the hearing;
• my own Position Statement was not initially before the Judge;
• my Position Statement had to be located during the hearing;
• I remain uncertain whether my Exhibits DM1–DM54 were readily available to and considered by the Court;
• significant factual allegations remained disputed;
• I felt unable to respond fully to all matters;
• I felt interrupted when attempting to explain my position;
• significant decisions were made concerning my relationship with Ethan;
• the resulting arrangements provide only limited four-weekly contact;
• there is no school holiday contact;
• there is no alternating Christmas contact.

I am concerned about the cumulative effect of these matters upon the fairness of the proceedings and upon my son's welfare.

My consideration of an appeal

Following the hearing, I began preparing to seek permission to appeal.

The potential grounds I am considering include:

• procedural unfairness;
• failure to consider relevant evidence;
• uncertainty regarding the availability of documentary evidence;
• late service of the Respondent’s Position Statement;
• difficulties with my effective participation as an autistic litigant in person;
• reliance upon disputed factual assertions;
• the welfare analysis;
• the limited contact ordered;
• the absence of holiday contact;
• the practical workability of the Order;
• and whether adequate reasons were given for the decisions made.

I am awaiting the sealed Order and seeking the transcript before finalising the appeal.

Significant new welfare information received on 6 July 2026

Only four days after the hearing, I received extremely concerning new information from the Respondent.

On 6 July 2026, the Respondent emailed me concerning my son's emotional wellbeing.

She informed me that my son had recently made concerning comments regarding suicide and feeling that some people did not understand him.

She stated that Ethan had said he would not do anything to himself but that hearing him mention suicide concerned her.

She also stated that my son may require additional professional support.

I regard this as extremely serious new welfare information.

I immediately agreed that my son should receive appropriate professional support.

I do not claim, without professional evidence, to know the precise cause of Ethan’s emotional deterioration.

However, I am deeply concerned about the context in which this has occurred.

That context includes:

• prolonged disruption to Ethan’s relationship with me;
• no direct contact since January 2026;
• continuing parental conflict;
• uncertainty regarding contact;
• limited meaningful time together;
• communication and information-sharing difficulties;
• and the recent Order providing only limited contact and no holiday contact.

I believe these circumstances require urgent, independent and evidence-based consideration.

My urgent C2 application

Following the new information received on 6 July 2026, I contacted the Court.

HMCTS informed me that, if I wished to seek an urgent hearing concerning those matters, I needed to 

submit a C2 application.

I have therefore prepared a C2 application seeking an urgent hearing.

I am asking the Court to consider:

• my son's current emotional welfare and safety;
• what professional assessment and support he requires;
• whether further safeguarding directions are necessary;
• the restoration of meaningful contact between Ethan and me;
• arrangements to reduce parental conflict;
• safer and more workable handover arrangements;
• and whether further assessment is required concerning with whom Ethan should live.

I am not asking the Court simply to assume that my son should immediately live with me.

I am asking for an urgent, evidence-based assessment of all realistic welfare options.

My proposed arrangements

My priority is reducing conflict and providing my son with stability.

I have proposed two possible arrangements for handovers.

The first is for both parents to meet at an appropriate halfway location, consistent with arrangements 

previously considered.

The second is for the Respondent to deliver my son at the commencement of contact and for me to return my son at the conclusion of contact.

My purpose in proposing these arrangements is to:

• reduce direct conflict;
• share responsibility;
• reduce uncertainty;
• protect my son from adult disputes;
• and allow my son to have meaningful time with me.

I also seek meaningful school holiday contact and alternating Christmas arrangements.

My concerns about my son's living arrangements

Following the serious new information regarding my son's emotional wellbeing, I believe the Court must consider all realistic options.

I have concerns about the circumstances affecting my son's current emotional welfare.

I believe that continuing conflict, disruption to contact, communication difficulties and uncertainty may be relevant factors requiring professional investigation.

I do not seek to present my belief as a proven medical or psychological conclusion.

I seek an independent, evidence-based assessment.

If the evidence demonstrates that my son's welfare would be better served by living with me, I ask that this option is properly considered.

What I have experienced personally

The proceedings have been extremely difficult for me.

I have attempted to understand complex legal procedures without representation.

I have prepared extensive evidence.

I have responded to allegations.

I have attempted to comply with court directions.

I have repeatedly sought information concerning my son.

I have attempted to maintain my relationship with my son.

I have raised concerns through the appropriate channels.

I have prepared complaints, applications, position statements, responses, chronologies and exhibits.

Despite those efforts, I have experienced repeated uncertainty about whether my evidence has been properly before the Court.

I have attended hearings where I felt unable to participate effectively.

I have experienced further disruption to my relationship with my son.

Most seriously, I have now been informed that my son is experiencing significant emotional difficulties and has made comments concerning suicide.

My overriding concern is that the legal proceedings, adult conflict and continuing delays must not distract from the central issue:

my son's welfare is deteriorating and he requires urgent, child-focused, professional and evidence-based support.

Current position

As of 8 July 2026:

• the sealed Order of 2 July 2026 remains awaited;
• I am seeking the transcript of the hearing;
• my HMCTS complaint has received a Stage 1 response;
• I am escalating that complaint to Stage 2;
• I am considering an appeal against the Order;
• I have prepared an urgent C2 application following the new welfare information;
• I am requesting reasonable adjustments, including remote attendance, because of my autism and delayed processing;
• and I continue to seek meaningful, stable and safe arrangements for my relationship with Ethan.

Conclusion

Throughout these proceedings, my objective has been to protect my relationship with my son and promote his welfare.

I recognise that the Court must consider evidence from all parties and make decisions according to my son's best interests.

What I seek is a process in which:

• all relevant evidence is properly available;
• disputed allegations are properly tested;
• both parties are treated fairly;
• my disability is appropriately accommodated;
• my son's wishes and feelings are properly understood;
• current professional evidence concerning my son's emotional welfare is obtained;
• and decisions are made on a complete, accurate and evidence-based understanding of his circumstances.

The situation has now become urgent.

My son's reported comments concerning suicide and feeling misunderstood demonstrate the need to focus immediately upon his emotional welfare.

I respectfully seek urgent action to ensure that my son receives appropriate professional support, that the reasons for his deterioration are properly assessed, that his relationship with me is considered as part of his overall welfare, and that all realistic options—including meaningful increased contact and, if supported by the evidence, a change in living arrangements—are properly and fairly considered.

My purpose is not to prolong conflict. My purpose is to ensure that my son is safe, supported, heard, and able to maintain meaningful relationships in arrangements that genuinely promote his welfare.