by A mother who was found to have been raped by her ex-partner was “devastated” after the family court allowed the convicted sex offender to have contact with her child.
Kristoffer Paul Arthur White, a serial rapist, was given unsupervised access to his daughter following a recommendation from a Child and Family Court Counseling and Support Service (Cafcass) officer, who carried out a risk assessment for the court.
Not only did the family court find that White raped the child’s mother three times but he also had a criminal conviction for raping a stranger in 2008. He can be named following a request submitted to the court by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (TBIJ).
The mother has expressed her dismay when she heard the suggestion that White should be allowed to have contact with her daughter, who is of primary school age.
“It was like being told, despite the court’s findings, Cafcass doesn’t believe you,” she said. “A judge has said it happened. But it doesn’t matter if he’s a convicted rapist and raped you – he can spend time with your child. It was an earthquake.”
The girl’s mother went on to successfully appeal the order and has since argued to the court that Cafcass is an “actively harmful organisation” that is “not fit for purpose”.
In court documents, her legal team said: “The Cafcass officer … was of the opinion that a man who dragged a young woman into a garden and raped her twice and raped the mother three times in these proceedings three times was safe safe. contact with a [young] girl in an unsupervised setting is a damning indictment of Cafcass’s role and work.”
I am concerned that two Cafcass employees have come to radical conclusions about safeguarding
Cafcass, which was rated “outstanding” by Ofsted this year, said it was unable to comment because proceedings had not been concluded.
White’s access to her child was suspended after the appeal pending a final decision on contact from the court. The case was referred to another judge, and a children’s guardian from Cafcass was appointed in June this year to represent the girl in relation to the press request to publish White’s name.
The new guardian has indicated to the court that White, a former soldier, “is a danger to women and children and it is not safe for him to have any contact or involvement” with his child. They also supported a new application by the mother to remove her parental responsibility.
The mother said: “I am concerned that two Cafcass employees have come to radical conclusions about safeguarding – it highlights the lack of a system to follow and the lack of awareness of the impact of domestic abuse and sexual assault.”
Now TBIJ and the Observer able to reveal the wider details of the case after the court issued a transparency order allowing the mother to talk about what happened. Prior to the parents’ separation, the mother and child lived in an environment of fear and intimidation due to White’s coercive and aggressive behavior, the court found.
After a fact-finding hearing in December 2022, Judge Sophie Harrison made several other serious decisions following an application by the father to change the arrangements under which he saw his daughter.
They included that the father raped the mother three times during the parents’ relationship and sexually assaulted her once after the relationship ended.
A judge in family court makes decisions on the balance of probabilities, but in criminal court convictions are brought on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof.
A Cafcass officer filed a report in April 2023 which dealt with the amount and type of contact the child should have with her father.
Harrison said the officer was “mindful of the serious nature of the court’s findings and was concerned that the father did not expressly accept those findings”.
My self-esteem was destroyed by the father. It systematically took down every recognizable part of myself
Despite this, Cafcass initially suggested that contact could be made from a supported contact center and into the community. An overnight encounter could then take place after at least a year if there were no complications.
Then, in June 2023, Harrison made an interim order that White’s contact with her child could move to being unsupervised in the community.
At a final hearing to determine the level of contact on February 12 this year, the Cafcass officer changed her position to say that there should be no contact at White’s home, or overnight, as long as there was “a risk of domestic abuse without get to grips with it”. It was also recommended that he complete a domestic abuse perpetrator program (DAPP).
In judgment Harrison said she found the Cafcass officer to be a “sensible, child-oriented and sensible witness” who did not promote “contact at all costs”, as suggested by the mother’s lawyer, Elisabeth Traugott.
The judge said the officer recognized the serious findings against White and the child’s “positive relationship and attachment to her father”. She said contact notes showed the father’s behavior towards his daughter was “loving, patient and child-oriented”.
The judge said she was concerned that the mother’s suggestion would remove her daughter’s contact with White or significantly stop her being a regular and loving presence in her life.
Harrison made a final order regarding unsupervised community contact between White and his daughter and said he should complete a DAPP before applying to increase his contact. However, that decision was overturned on appeal following a hearing in April before Judge Greenfield.
The mother was represented this time by barrister Charlotte Proudman, who told the court that Harrison’s order failed to adequately address the risk posed by a convicted rapist to her ex-partner and her child.
She said that White only “begrudgingly” – through his lawyer – accepted the court’s decisions at the final hearing, that he had previously accused the mother of lying about the allegations and that he had not completed DAPP.
The mother’s case was that the contact order was “unsafe” and was made despite the father’s “extremely serious risk profile”.
The court was reminded that White served four years of a nine-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2008. According to media reports, White dragged the 19-year-old into a garden, threatened to kill her and raped her twice. He was identified by his DNA two years after the attack and convicted in 2011. He denied the offense at the time and continued to deny it during the family proceedings.
Responding to the mother’s grounds of appeal, White said there had been unsupervised community contact with her daughter for seven months at the time of the final hearing. White’s barrister, Thomas Pye, said the proposal to stop contact would “upset and upset” the girl and deprive her of a loving presence in her life. He said the Cafcass officer noted that the parents agreed that his daughter enjoyed the encounter and had a good relationship with her father.
Greenfield allowed the appeal on two grounds, including that the district judge, Harrison, had – after refusing the parties permission to give evidence – given sufficient weight to the mother’s written statements describing the the impact of the father’s abuse and the court proceedings was traumatic. The court will decide the issue of contact later.
I supported the request because [White] risk to women, children and the general public
The mother told the court the process of giving evidence in relation to multiple rapes without legal representation until the final hearing had been agonizing.
In her final statement to the court she said: “The father destroyed my self-esteem. It systematically took down every identifiable part of me … The abuse I endured affected every part of my life.”
When her job was terminated with suicidal thoughts, she was deeply concerned knowing her daughter would have unsupervised contact with White, according to court documents.
The mother supported a joint application by the TBIJ and freelance journalist Suzanne Martin to name White in relation to the family proceedings.
She explained: “I supported the application because [White] it is a danger to women, children and the general public.”
Judge Moradifar said the facts of the case showed “a public interest argument that prevents the abuser from protecting his or a child’s rights that prevents him/her from being publicly identified”.
In a judgment published in July, he also ruled that it was necessary to name White because his “established course of conduct” could put people not involved in the case at risk of harm.
The newly appointed guardian acknowledged the public safety argument for naming the sex offender, but opposed the request, arguing that further publication was unnecessary because the public already had information about his criminal conviction.
Because of the guardian’s opposition in naming White to the mother it was submitted to the court that Cafcass was empowering the father to defend himself over the rights of the child without paying due attention to his behavior and the consequences for his victims .
Her lawyers, Proudman and Traugott, wrote in court documents: “Cafcass’s position changed from prior contact at all costs with the father of raps to supporting no contact except when an appeal was successful. […] and events became the subject of media scrutiny and a transparency mandate.”
Representing the children’s guardian, barrister Oliver Wraight said that he raised a significant issue with a large number of points made on behalf of the mother. They included that Cafcass was a “harmful organisation” and that the guardian was “protecting rape”.
He told the court: “Cafcass is not an amorphous body that shoots a single scene. Guardians provide their views. There is a legitimate public debate about whether children should have contact with physically or sexually violent fathers.”
