Re L And M (Children: Private Law) V

Direct contact will ordinarily promote a child’s relationship with an absent parent. However, the court may restrict contact to indirect contact where there are compelling welfare reasons. Such reasons may include a child’s strong opposition, emotional vulnerability, a substantial risk of further harm, and the absence of any realistic positive benefit from a proposed therapeutic meeting.

Any indirect contact should be structured around the children’s interests and autonomy. Messages should be suitable for their age, light in tone, and free from pressure. A Children Act 1989 Family Assistance Order may be made to support the arrangement.

These were private-law proceedings concerning two children and their father. The family had experienced prolonged conflict, international relocation, Hague Convention proceedings, and repeated unsuccessful attempts to re-establish direct contact.

The father sought continuation of the proceedings and a therapeutic family meeting, with the prospect of restoring direct contact. The mother and Children’s Guardian supported bringing the proceedings to an end with indirect contact only. The central issue was whether a further therapeutic meeting would serve the children’s welfare or expose them to further emotional harm.

1. The request for a therapeutic family meeting was refused. The children were strongly averse to participating and had already experienced several unsuccessful contact attempts. A further meeting would probably expose them to the father’s impulsive behaviour, including possible denigration of the mother and allegations of alienation or brainwashing. The likely result was further emotional harm, with no sufficiently realistic positive benefit.
2. It was ordinarily in children’s welfare interests to know an absent parent and to consolidate that relationship through regular, liberal and flexible direct contact. This was an unusual case. The children’s anxiety, emotional fragility, past experiences, and the father’s lack of insight provided compelling reasons for limiting the relationship to indirect contact.
3. The court rejected the father’s allegation that the mother had manipulated or alienated the children. The children’s views were found to arise from their own experiences and memories of their father’s conduct.
4. Indirect contact was to take the form of occasional cards, letters and presents. The father was expected to respect the children’s autonomy, avoid pressure, concentrate on matters that interested them, and demonstrate respect for their mother. Messages should be child-friendly and emotionally light.
5. A Family Assistance Order was made pursuant to section 16 of the Children Act 1989 for 12 months, with the Children’s Guardian appointed as nominated officer to assist the parents and the father in maintaining suitable indirect contact.