P & L (Minors), Re

In determining contact arrangements in an unconventional family structure, the court should avoid forcing the facts into traditional parental stereotypes. The parties’ agreed or discerned roles should be identified, and contact should primarily reflect those roles, subject to the children’s welfare and the other circumstances of the case. Agreements about future roles should preferably be reached before a child’s birth. Where adults with parental responsibility cannot agree, the court may impose a default structure, but the resulting order should recognise that the adults remain better placed to determine arrangements in the children’s interests. Direct contact may be refused where it would reinforce a child’s hostility, while indirect contact may preserve or facilitate a future relationship.

The proceedings concerned two children, P and L, living with their biological mother and her same-sex partner. Their biological father and his same-sex partner sought contact. The court had previously determined the nature of the relationships and made interim contact arrangements. The present judgment addressed the children’s differing welfare needs, the appropriate extent of direct and indirect contact, school involvement, and associated procedural matters.

P was experiencing significant emotional harm arising from the prolonged conflict between the adults. L had not yet suffered comparable harm, but her future welfare was a concern. The central issue was the nature and extent of contact that properly reflected the men’s roles while serving the welfare of each child.

1. Roles and guidance. The court held that unconventional parenting arrangements require a distinct analysis. Traditional models such as separated fathers, grandparents or a conventional nuclear family should not be imposed by analogy. The court should identify the roles agreed before the child’s birth or discerned from the parties’ conduct. Future roles should preferably be agreed before the first child is born.
2. Default orders. Where adults with parental responsibility cannot or will not agree how the family should operate, the court may impose a default structure. That structure must reflect the proper role of each adult, but the court must also consider the welfare factors particular to the child and case. The parties remain free to agree different arrangements.
3. P. Direct contact was presently unsuitable because it would reinforce P’s hostility. The court ordered continuation of indirect contact and required that P be invited to participate in L’s contact, preserving as much of the relationship as possible. The emotional permission needed for regular contact lay with the women, and the court could not compel it.
4. L. The court ordered one weekend’s staying contact each month, with a longer period in August 2012 and attendance at the men’s civil partnership ceremony. The arrangements were staged to reflect what was achievable at the time while recognising the men’s proper but limited role.
5. Other matters. ML, who held parental responsibility, was entitled to receive school reports and photographs and to communicate with the school within its policy. ML and AR could attend school subject to policy and safeguards. No order was made under Part II of the Children Act 1989 restricting applications under section 91(14). The case was reserved for review and no order as to costs was made.