AB v BB & Ors

In determining contact and a proposed change of name, the court’s paramount consideration is the welfare of each child. Contact with a non-resident parent is important, but must yield where it would undermine the children’s stability or the primary carer’s ability to care for them. The risk of revealing the children’s whereabouts, and the effect of contact on a fearful primary carer, may justify refusing both direct and ordinary indirect contact. Expert evidence is required only where it is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings under the applicable procedural rule. A change of name may be ordered where welfare and safety considerations outweigh the importance of preserving the existing surname.

The father applied for direct contact with his four young children or, alternatively, indirect contact. He also sought a psychiatric risk assessment. The mother opposed contact and applied to change the children’s surname. The Children’s Guardian opposed contact, save for a possible arrangement under which letters could be retained by Cafcass and made available to the children if the mother later considered that appropriate. The central issues were whether contact would be consistent with the children’s welfare, whether expert evidence was reasonably required, and whether the children’s names should be changed.

1. Contact. Applying section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the welfare of each child was paramount. The court recognised the importance of children maintaining contact with a non-resident parent, but found that the children’s welfare required the stability of their care by the mother to be protected.
2. The mother’s fear was genuine and supported by the admitted assaults, the father’s minimisation of his conduct, his lack of insight into its effect, and evidence that he might try to locate the mother and children. Any direct contact, even if supervised, risked disclosure of information. Indirect contact through letters or cards could also adversely affect the mother and thereby the children. The court therefore refused direct and ordinary indirect contact.
3. A limited arrangement was permitted under which the father could write to the children through Cafcass, with the correspondence retained and made available only if the mother considered that to be in the children’s interests. The judge envisaged no more than two letters a year.
4. Expert evidence. Applying rule 25.1 of the Family Proceedings Rules 2010, the requested psychiatric risk assessment was not reasonably required. The existing evidence, including the Children’s Guardian’s assessment and the father’s oral evidence, was sufficient. An assessment would not address the critical effect of the mother’s fear on the children’s care.
5. Change of name. The children’s welfare and safety justified changing their surname. Although the importance of names to identity was recognised, the uncommon surname and the father’s expressed attempts to discover their whereabouts created a serious safety concern. The mother’s application was granted.