J (A Child), Re

In a child-contact dispute, a judge is not required to direct further professional assessment merely because a parent seeks assessment of understanding or contrition. The judge may make a fair and impartial assessment personally and may refuse further assessment where it has been considered and would be futile. Serious findings of abuse, threats of abduction and a parent’s failure to confront those findings may justify a final no-contact order. A possible effect of the order on a future Article 8 family-life argument concerning deportation does not require preservation of the parent’s presence in the jurisdiction for therapeutic work.

The father appealed against a final no-contact order made by HHJ Cliffe at Dewsbury County Court on his application to develop a relationship with his young son. The parents had separated after allegations of serious physical and emotional abuse, threats to the mother’s family and threats to abduct the child. Following findings made at an earlier hearing, the father was directed to respond to them before the welfare hearing. The father argued that fairness required assessment by an experienced childcare professional of his understanding and contrition, and relied on the possible impact of refusal of contact on a future Article 8 family-life argument concerning deportation. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled to refuse further assessment and make a final no-contact order.

Appeal dismissed unanimously.

1. The trial judge was entitled to attach great weight to the serious findings made against the father. They included abusive conduct within the marriage and wider family, threats of violence and rape against members of the mother’s extended family, and a meaningful threat to abduct the child. The father’s subsequent response did not accept a number of the findings and offered an implausible explanation for the most serious matters.
2. The father could not establish that fairness required an assessment by a childcare professional. The judge was capable of making a fair and impartial assessment of the application himself. He had considered the possibility of further assessment and was entitled to conclude that it would be futile. It was for the judge to decide whether any further assessment was necessary.
3. The possible effect of a final refusal of contact on a future Article 8 argument concerning deportation was only a consequence of the decision. The judge was not required to preserve the father’s presence in the jurisdiction so that he could access therapeutic services. The fact that the father had not engaged, or sought to engage, with such services reinforced the conclusion that the order was justified.

The order of the county court was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2012] EWCA Civ 720, the appeal against the final no-contact order was dismissed.
• Dewsbury County Court: HHJ Cliffe made a final order for no contact after findings at an earlier hearing and a subsequent welfare hearing.