G (A Child)

In contact proceedings, the court must pursue all reasonable avenues towards resuming direct contact between a child and a parent, even where prospects are limited. That obligation continues unless there is compelling evidence that the child’s welfare requires respite. A court should not refuse further welfare enquiries merely because a positive recommendation might create conflict with the resident parent or lead to enforcement difficulties. The proper course is to obtain the necessary evidence and then decide what arrangements best serve the child’s welfare.

The father and mother had separated after a short marriage. The child had not seen her father directly since early 2002, although indirect contact continued. At a hearing before His Honour Judge Waine in Northampton County Court, the father did not seek immediate direct contact. He sought continued indirect contact and a fuller opportunity for the CAFCASS officer to meet the child and assess her wishes and feelings.

The judge refused that request because a recommendation for direct contact might place the court in conflict with the mother and potentially lead to imprisonment. The father appealed. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled to decline further CAFCASS enquiries on that basis.

1. Appeal allowed. The court directed Diane Clark, the CAFCASS officer, to meet the child again, complete her enquiries and report more fully to Northampton County Court.
2. The judge’s reasoning was an excessively old-fashioned approach to the difficulties in contact cases. The mother was not found to be implacably hostile. She supported indirect contact, and her opposition to direct contact was found sincere, though not rational.
3. Following Re S [2004] 1 FLR 1279, the court must pursue all possible avenues towards restoring a natural relationship between parent and child, however difficult or unpromising the prospects, unless compelling evidence shows that the child’s welfare requires respite. That principle required further enquiry here before the issue of direct contact could properly be determined.
4. The direction contemplated one or more meetings, as the CAFCASS officer considered necessary, followed by a supplemental report. The later course of the proceedings would depend on the report, the parties’ conduct and the directions of the county court.
5. For any future contested hearing, the court should ensure clear findings on material outstanding issues. In particular, where an allegation of domestic violence of substance is raised, Re L and related cases given in 2001 indicate that it must be tried as a preliminary issue, subject to consideration of the time elapsed since the parties lived together. The judge should also consider whether oral evidence and findings were required on the father’s alleged change since the earlier findings.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from Northampton County Court allowed. The court directed further CAFCASS enquiries and a fuller report.
• Northampton County Court: His Honour Judge Waine declined to advance to direct contact and refused the father’s request for fuller CAFCASS assessment, while increasing indirect contact.
• Earlier Court of Appeal proceedings: The court had previously upheld the refusal of direct contact but narrowed the scope of a Section 91(14) prohibition. Those proceedings formed part of the same litigation.