H (A Child)

In deciding whether a child’s interim contact should be supervised or supported, the court must address arrangements intended to minimise risk and secure safety. It may nevertheless conclude, on the evidence, that supervision is unnecessary. The decision is an evaluative balancing exercise. Relevant considerations include the seriousness and strength of the asserted risks, the likelihood that they are well-founded, the benefit of contact, and the harm or delay that ending or restricting contact may cause. A refusal to adjourn to investigate alternative supervision is lawful where the judge has considered the issue and is satisfied that supervision is not necessary. On appeal, the court asks whether the decision fell outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.

The mother appealed from an order made by HHJ Harington in the Bristol County Court directing that the father should have unsupervised contact with their young daughter. The mother relied on alleged domestic violence, unpredictable behaviour, drinking, rough handling and sexualised behaviour. She argued that the judge had failed properly to apply paragraph 20 of the recent Practice Direction and should have adjourned the matter to investigate alternative arrangements for supervised or supported contact. The central issues were whether the judge’s assessment of risk and the benefits of contact was plainly wrong, and whether refusing an adjournment was an improper exercise of discretion.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. Ward LJ gave the judgment, with Jacob LJ and Rimer LJ agreeing.

1. The judge had properly considered whether contact should be supervised or supported, as required by paragraph 20 of the Practice Direction. On the evidence of the social worker and guardian, he was entitled to conclude that the child would be safe during unsupervised contact.
2. The refusal to adjourn was also within the judge’s discretion. He had the proposed adjournment in mind and was entitled to refuse it once satisfied that the risks were not sufficiently grave or well-founded to make supervision necessary.
3. The decision involved a balancing exercise. The judge weighed the asserted risks against the evidence that contact was loving, beneficial and working satisfactorily, together with the harmful effect that stopping or delaying contact might have. He was also entitled to take account of the unreasonableness of requiring the paternal aunt to continue travelling to supervise contact.
4. On an appeal from such an evaluative discretionary decision, the Court of Appeal must review whether the decision fell outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible. Other judges might have adopted a more cautious approach, but this decision was not plainly wrong and did not fall outside that ambit.

Order: appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed. The court upheld the order for unsupervised contact: [2008] EWCA Civ 980.
2. Bristol County Court: HHJ Harington directed that the father should have unsupervised contact with the child.