A mother who was raped by her ex-partner was left “devastated” after the family court allowed the convicted sex offender to have contact with their child.
Kristoffer Paul Arthur White, a serial rapist, was granted unescorted access to his daughter on the recommendation of a worker from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), who carried out a risk assessment for the court.
Not only had White been convicted in family court of raping the child’s mother three times, but he had also been convicted of raping a stranger in 2008. He can be named in a filing with the court by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).
The mother told how shocked she was when she heard the advice that White should have contact with her daughter, who is in primary school.
“It was like being told Cafcass doesn’t believe you, despite the court’s findings,” she said. “A judge has said it happened. But it doesn’t matter that he’s a convicted rapist and he raped you – he gets to spend time with your child. It was earth-shattering.”
The girl’s mother successfully appealed against the order and has now argued in court that Cafcass is an “actively harmful organisation” that is “not fit for purpose”.
In court documents, her legal team said: “That a Cafcass officer … considered that a man who dragged a young woman into a garden and raped her twice and then raped the mother in these proceedings three times could safely have contact with a [young] girl in an unaccompanied environment, is a damning indictment of the role of Cafcass and its work.”
I find it worrying that two Cafcass employees came to completely opposite conclusions regarding the protection of
Cafcass, which was rated “outstanding” by Ofsted this year, said it could not comment as procedures have not yet been completed.
White’s access to his child was suspended following the appeal and pending a final decision on contact by the court. The case was referred to another judge and a Cafcass guardian was appointed in June this year to represent the girl in relation to the press application to publish White’s name.
The new guardian has advised the court that White, a former soldier, “is a danger to women and children and that it is unsafe to have any contact or involvement” with his child. They have also supported a new application by the mother to have him stripped of his parental rights.
The mother said: “I find it disturbing that two Cafcass employees came to completely opposite conclusions regarding child protection. It highlights a lack of systems to monitor and a lack of awareness of the impact of domestic abuse and sexual abuse.”
Now TBIJ and the Observer can reveal the broader details of the case after the court issued a transparency order allowing the mother to talk about what happened. Before the parents’ separation, the mother and child lived in an environment of fear and intimidation because of White’s coercive and aggressive behavior, the court found.
Following a hearing in December 2022, Judge Sophie Harrison made a number of other serious findings after the father filed a request to vary the arrangements under which he saw his daughter.
They reported, among other things, that the father had raped the mother three times during the relationship and that he had sexually abused her once after the relationship ended.
In family court, findings are made by a judge on the basis of probability, while in criminal court, convictions are based on a standard of proof that is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
In April 2023, a Cafcass officer produced a report discussing the extent and nature of contact the child should have with her father.
Harrison said the officer was “aware of the seriousness of the court’s findings and was concerned that the father expressly did not accept those findings”.
My self-esteem was destroyed by my father. He systematically tore down every recognizable part of me
Despite this, Cafcass initially advised that contact could be made from a supported contact centre to the community. Overnight contact could then take place after at least a year if there had been no issues.
In June 2023, Harrison issued a preliminary order stating that White’s contact with his child could occur unsupervised in the community.
At a final hearing to determine the level of contact on February 12 this year, the Cafcass officer reversed her position and said that contact should not take place in White’s home, or at night, while there was “an unaddressed risk of domestic abuse”. It was also recommended that he complete a Domestic Abuse Offender Programme (DAPP).
In a ruling, Harrison said she had found the Cafcass officer to be a “compelling, child-focused and sensible witness” who had not “promoted contact at all costs”, as had been suggested by the mother’s lawyer, Elisabeth Traugott.
The judge said the officer had acknowledged both the serious findings against White and the child’s “positive relationship and attachment to her father”. She said contact notes showed the father’s behaviour towards his daughter was “loving, patient and child-centred”.
The judge said she was concerned that the mother’s proposal to stop or significantly limit her daughter’s contact with White would result in the child not having a regular and loving presence in her life.
Harrison issued a permanent order for unsupervised community contact between White and his daughter, and said he must complete a DAPP before he could apply to increase his contact. However, that decision was overturned on appeal after a hearing in April before Judge Greenfield.
The mother was represented this time by lawyer Charlotte Proudman, who told the court that Harrison’s order failed to take sufficient account of the risk a convicted rapist posed to his ex-partner and their child.
She said White had only “reluctantly” accepted the court’s findings at the last hearing – through his lawyer – that he had previously accused the mother of lying about the allegations and that he had not completed a DAPP.
The mother believed that the contact measure was ‘unsafe’ and had been imposed despite the father’s ‘extremely serious risk profile’.
The court was reminded that White had served four years of a nine-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2008. According to press reports, White dragged the 19-year-old into a garden, threatened to kill her and raped her twice. He was identified via DNA two years after the attack and convicted in 2011. He denied the offence at the time and continued to deny it during the family proceedings.
Responding to the mother’s grounds for appeal, White said that at the time of the last hearing, unsupervised community contact with his daughter had been taking place for seven months without any problems. White’s barrister, Thomas Pye, said the proposal to stop the contact would cause “disruption and distress” to the girl and deprive her of a loving presence in her life. He said the Cafcass officer had noted that the parents agreed that his daughter enjoyed the contact and had a good relationship with her father.
Greenfield allowed the appeal on two grounds, including that the District Judge, Harrison, who had refused the parties permission to give evidence, had not given sufficient weight to the mother’s written statements describing the traumatic impact of the father’s abuse and the legal proceedings. The issue of contact will be determined by the court at a later date.
I supported the application because [White] is a risk to women, children and the wider community
The mother told the court the process of testifying about multiple rapes without legal representation until the final hearing had been terrifying.
In her final statement to the court, she said: “My self-esteem was destroyed by the father. He systematically took away every recognisable part of me… The abuse I experienced affected every part of my life.”
She left her job with suicidal thoughts and experienced acute anxiety when she knew her daughter would have unsupervised contact with White, court documents show.
The mother supported a joint request by the TBIJ and freelance journalist Suzanne Martin to name White in connection with the family law proceedings.
She explained: “I supported the application because [White] is a risk to women, children and the wider community.”
Judge Moradifar said the facts in the case demonstrated a “compelling public interest argument” that prevents the abuser from concealing his or her rights or those of a child, thereby preventing him or her from being publicly identified.
In a ruling published in July, he also ruled that naming White was necessary because his “consistent course of conduct” could expose people unrelated to the case to risk of harm.
The newly appointed guardian acknowledged that naming the sex offender was in the interests of public safety, but opposed the request, arguing that information about his conviction was already in the public domain and that further publication was therefore unnecessary.
The guardian’s opposition to White’s naming led the mother to argue in court that Cafcass was giving the father the power to protect himself behind the child’s rights, without taking into account his behaviour and the impact on his victims.
Her lawyers, Proudman and Traugott, wrote in court documents: “Cafcass’ position changed from being pro-contact at all costs with a rapist father to not supporting any contact unless a successful appeal was made […] and the proceedings became the subject of media surveillance and a transparency order.”
Barrister Oliver Wraight, representing the children’s guardian, said he disagreed with a number of points made on behalf of the mother, including that Cafcass was a “harmful organisation” and that the guardian was “protecting a rapist”.
He told the court: “Cafcass is not an amorphous body that expresses a single view. Guardians express their views. There is a legitimate public debate about whether children should have contact with fathers who have been physically or sexually abusive.”