L (A Child)

In child contact proceedings, a contact order must sufficiently reflect the need to protect the child against risks identified in the evidence. The child’s welfare must remain central to the arrangements. An appellate court may vary the order where the first-instance judge has not adequately addressed those risks, including by selecting a safer and more practical venue and clarifying parental responsibilities for facilitating contact.

The appeal concerned contact between a 14-year-old child, Jack, and his mother. On 6 May 2008, HHJ Corrie made an order requiring contact in the mother’s area of Sydenham, despite CAFCASS evidence concerning risks associated with that environment and allegations of sexual abuse in the area. Wall LJ directed an oral appeal hearing after expressing concern that the order might not be in Jack’s best interests. The central issue was whether the contact arrangements sufficiently protected him against the identified risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe gave judgment, with which Lord Justice Rix agreed.

1. Disposition. Permission was granted. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent and the order was varied.
2. The evidence indicated that Jack wished and needed to see his mother, but also required protection from the environment in which he had previously encountered difficulties. The CAFCASS officer expressed strong concerns about his returning to that neighbourhood, particularly after allegations of sexual abuse had emerged.
3. The first-instance judge had not sufficiently reflected in the intervention the need to protect Jack against the risks identified by the CAFCASS officer. Appellate intervention was therefore justified.
4. The July contact date had passed under a stay. Contact on 2 August, 6 September and 5 October was directed to take place for two hours at the cafeteria on the first or second floor of John Lewis in Oxford Street, with the father responsible for taking Jack there and collecting him.
5. The telephone-contact provision remained in force. It was varied to make clear that both parents were equally required to facilitate it, although it was not to resume until the CAFCASS officer had assessed the position.

The father was urged to cooperate, since without that cooperation there would be little opportunity for further assessment or effective consideration at the adjourned hearing.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 July 2008, permission was granted, the appeal was allowed to a limited extent, and the contact order was varied.
2. Northampton County Court: On 6 May 2008, HHJ Corrie made the contact order. Wall LJ subsequently directed an oral appeal hearing after expressing concern that the order had not adequately addressed Jack’s welfare and safety.