W (Children)

In a contact dispute, refusal of direct contact may be premature where the assessment has not properly examined practical forms of supervised or supported contact. Where an appeal identifies a realistic intervention capable of addressing the children’s anxieties and restoring a parental relationship, and that option was unavailable to the judge below, the appellate court may allow the appeal so that it can be explored. A referral must remain exploratory and cannot compel contact if the provider concludes that contact would not serve the children’s best interests.

The father sought contact with L and D after direct contact, previously ordered and exercised, ended in June 2006 following allegations of excessive drinking, threats and aggression, together with proven breaches of a non-molestation order. A CAFCASS report recorded strong opposition from the children but did not sufficiently analyse whether supervised contact could restart the relationship. Deputy Circuit Judge Barry refused direct contact, leaving only indirect cards and letters. On appeal, the father proposed referral to Families Forward, a Bradford organisation offering supported contact and work addressing parental anger. The central issue was whether that previously unavailable option should be explored.

1. Permission and disposition. Mr Justice Bennett granted permission to appeal and allowed the appeal. Lord Justice Thorpe agreed with the judgment and the extent of the relief.
2. Assessment of contact options. The deputy judge had faced a difficult decision in light of the children’s acute anxieties and the evidence from the CAFCASS officer. However, the CAFCASS assessment had not adequately examined whether supervised contact could reduce the children’s anxiety and assist in restoring the relationship with their father.
3. Material new option. The appellate court was provided with information about Families Forward, which offered supported contact, assistance for children and parents affected by family breakdown, and work directed at reducing parental anger. That option had not been available to the deputy judge. Its availability placed the case in a different light and made it desirable to investigate whether the relationship could be restored in some form.
4. Limits of the referral. The referral was exploratory. It did not require Families Forward to establish contact if it concluded that contact would not be in the children’s best interests. The court therefore directed the appropriate referral rather than restoring the previous contact arrangements.

Order: Application granted. Appeal allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Under [2007] EWCA Civ 753, permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. The court directed a referral to Families Forward.
2. Bradford County Court: Deputy Circuit Judge Barry refused the father’s application for direct contact, leaving provision for indirect cards and letters only.